Water Resources

This chapter examines climate change impacts on Canada’s water resources, and adaptation actions in the management of supply and demand, physical hazards and water quality.

Recommended citation

Carlson, H., Pietroniro, A., Gober, P., Leger, W. and Merrill, S. (2021): Water Resources; Chapter 4 in Canada in a Changing Climate: National Issues Report, (eds.) F.J. Warren and N. Lulham; Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Coordinating lead authors

Hayley Carlson, Global Water Futures Program, Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan

Alain Pietroniro (PhD, P. ENG., Department of Civil Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary)

Lead authors

Patricia Gober, PhD, Global Water Futures Program, Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan
Wendy Leger, Boundary Water Issues Unit, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Government of Canada

Stephanie Merrill (Global Water Futures Program, Global Institute for Water Security, University of Saskatchewan)

Contributing authors

Laila Balkhi, University of Saskatchewan
Sarah Foley, University of Saskatchewan
Bob Halliday, R. Halliday & Associates Ltd.

Lawrence Martz (PhD, University of Saskatchewan)

Figure 4.1 View details
Figure 4.2 View details
Figure 4.3 View details
Figure 4.4 View details
Figure 4.5 View details
Figure 4.6 View details
Figure 4.7 View details
Figure 4.8 View details
Figure 4.9 View details
Figure 4.10 View details
Figure 4.11 View details

Key messages

Climate change creates risks for water resources

Global climate change has already altered patterns of rainfall, snow, ice and permafrost melt, exacerbating existing water availability and quality issues, as well as changing the nature and timing of water-related natural hazards, such as floods and droughts.

Effective coordination across complex water systems enhances adaptation

Canadian organizations and institutions are unevenly prepared to manage water-related risks associated with climate change. Partnerships and networks allow organizations at a variety of scales to access additional resources, share knowledge and risk, and enhance adaptive capacity. Transboundary and watershed organizations offer useful insights into effective coordination of water systems with diverse stakeholders that are dealing with high uncertainty.

Adaptation is advancing through innovation and adaptive management

There are promising examples of coordination and innovation in the water sector across Canada. New approaches use scenarios to explore how decision-making strategies perform across a range of plausible futures, implement iterative processes for monitoring and adjusting actions, and engage stakeholders in social learning, laying the groundwork for innovation and adaptation.

It is vital to engage the public and build awareness about adaptation opportunities

Successful adaptation requires public buy-in to the science of climate change and the need to implement adaptation policies. A majority of Canadians support policies to address water-related problems, but managing water resources ranks low on their list of salient problems after the economy, health care, and cost of living. Extreme events, including floods, droughts and episodes of poor water quality, can often bring the need for better water management to the forefront.

Water system vulnerability can be reduced through quality data and resilient design

Reducing vulnerabilities in water systems involves identifying weak spots under current and future climate conditions, and providing access to high quality and locally relevant data. While the quality and resolution of data for monitoring change in uncertain environmental systems is variable, resilient design practices are emerging.

4.1

Introduction

Water is the vehicle that delivers many climate change impacts to society and the environment (IPCC, 2014). Water is a locally variable resource, and society’s vulnerability to climate-related hazards, such as the impacts from flooding and drought, differ from one region to another. Vulnerability to hazards also stems from the ability of societal institutions to adequately prepare for and manage the new risks of climate change.

The availability of water is naturally limited, and water is not always in the right place at the right time, or of the right quality or quantity. Significant and varied water infrastructure and management systems have developed across Canada, designed primarily around the assumption that past natural variability is a reliable and robust indicator of future variability (Milly et al., 2008). With climate change, this assumption is no longer as valid, leaving practitioners and water managers often facing difficult and complex decisions (Simonovic, 2017).

Canada faces some special challenges in adapting its water systems to climate change. These include our large land mass, diverse geography, northern location and wide range of climate and hydrological regimes, coupled with a broad range of consumptive and non-consumptive uses that control the timing and supply of water resources (Statistics Canada, 2017). There are, for example, over 15,000 dams of various sizes administered by myriad jurisdictions, including federal, provincial and territorial governments, municipalities, irrigators, industries and utilities, for a wide range of purposes, including hydroelectricity, water supply, flood control, and mining and tailings management (Canadian Dam Association, 2019). The highly fragmented nature of water governance is also significant. While the constitutional responsibility for water resources management lies primarily with the provinces, the nature of the resource means that water resources are governed and managed by a complex system of stakeholders and partners, including governments at different levels, with participation from a variety of non-governmental organizations, local communities, and Indigenous and environmental organizations (Renzetti and Dupont, 2017). Effective coordination across these decision-making units enhances the capacity to share risk, learn from one another and seize opportunities to reduce vulnerability.

This chapter assesses the most up-to-date knowledge on climate and hydrological science and adaptation processes, and applies this knowledge to discuss the challenges, needs and opportunities that lie ahead for Canadian water resource managers and planners. The science presents a compelling case for action. However, equally important to assessing adaptation are the strengths and capacities of Canadian water institutions for changing business-as-usual systems of practice. In a large and diverse country like Canada, it is not surprising that the pace of adaptation is uneven, with more evidence of innovative local-scale responses, and less progress towards comprehensive national-scale strategies.

This chapter summarizes major adaptation efforts, while assessing the capacity of Canadian water institutions to respond to climate change and its associated uncertainties and complexities. It investigates the capacity of these institutions to plan for a future that may be substantially different from the past, to initiate a conversation about the kind of water future that people want and the policies needed to get there. It is still unclear whether governance systems, institutional practices and monitoring programs can change quickly enough to avert significant disruption and missed opportunities. Canada’s institutional changes with respect to water resources are spotty and often bottom-up, but the case studies reviewed in this chapter demonstrate that local-level initiatives can serve as guides for more robust national action.

4.2

Climate change creates risks for water resources

Climate change impacts to the water cycle have already occurred, leading to damaged infrastructure, increased operating costs, disrupted operating seasons, and deteriorating water quality through excess nutrients and harmful algae blooms. Changes to overall water availability are projected to be more pronounced in the future, especially under high emissions scenarios. It is not always easy, however, to isolate climate change impacts from effects caused by human development, such as land use change. Human development can exacerbate or reduce climate-driven changes, introducing a considerable amount of uncertainty into the adaptation process.

4.2.1

Observed changes

Climate change has already affected Canada’s cold-dominated water cycle, and has introduced risks to society and the environment (see Figure 4.1). Observed annual average temperature increases for Canada are about twice the global average, and more than three times the global average in Northern Canada (Zhang et al., 2019). Canada’s Changing Climate Report (Bush and Lemmen, 2019) synthesizes the most recent scientific evidence of climate change impacts. Observed changes from the report that are relevant to water resources include:

Melting ice, thawing permafrost and shorter duration of snow cover. Glaciers and ice fields are melting, thinning and retreating at unprecedented rates. Permafrost has warmed at many sites from the edge of the boreal forest to the tundra, and is disappearing along its southern boundaries. The portion of the year with snow cover and lake ice cover has decreased by 5% to 10% per decade since 1981 and seasonal snow accumulation has decreased in many regions (Derksen et al., 2019). These changes are particularly pronounced in Northern Canada, and present risks to the structural integrity of infrastructure (Lemmen et al., 2014) and can disrupt shipping routes and winter roads (Campbell et al., 2014; Lemmen et al., 2014). Over time, these changes may also introduce new mining and tourism opportunities in northern regions (Kovacs and Thistlethwaite, 2014; Lemmen et al., 2014), and are anticipated to increase the productivity of northern ecosystems as nutrients become more readily available (Orihel et al., 2017).
Increasing precipitation and a transition from snow to rain. Precipitation has increased across all regions by an average of 20% since 1948. The greatest increases have occurred in Northern Canada and parts of Manitoba, Ontario, northern Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Precipitation is falling more often as rain rather than snow, especially in the spring and fall (Zhang et al., 2019). Increased precipitation and subsequent runoff have been linked with excess nutrients in water systems, increasing the incidence of harmful algae blooms (McCullough et al., 2012).
Changes in the timing of water availability. The total volume of water flowing through a river basin¹ in an average year shows very little change, but significant shifts in timing have been observed (Bonsal et al., 2019). There is an increasing risk that less water may be available in hotter months for energy (Lemmen et al., 2014) and food production (Campbell et al., 2014), as early snowmelt contributes to lower summer flows (Bonsal et al., 2019). River and lake freeze-up now occurs later in the winter and over a shorter period of time, while ice break-up occurs earlier in the spring (Derksen et al., 2019). These shifts in timing can affect farming and industrial operations, and disrupt the natural patterns to which ecosystems have adapted (Islam et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2014).
Changes in the nature of extreme events. There are detectable changes in the nature of flood events in some areas, with more rain-on-snow events, rainfall-driven events and earlier spring flooding (Bonsal et al., 2019). For example, climate change played a role in the extreme rainfall events that contributed to the 2013 Calgary flood (Teufel et al., 2017), the 2014 Assiniboine flood (Szeto et al., 2015), and the 2017 Ottawa floods (Teufel et al., 2019). Canadian municipal planners rank extreme storm events and flooding as the two most frequently experienced climate change impacts (McMillan et al., 2019), and these events can increase contaminant loads in water systems, degrading water quality (Gooré Bi et al., 2015; Jalliffier-Verne et al., 2015). While costly, observed changes in droughts to date represent yearly variations from the normal, rather than the product of long-term trends related to climate change (Bonsal et al., 2019).

Thus far, these observed changes have resulted in varied impacts to average annual river flows and lake levels (Bonsal et al., 2019) due to the tremendous amount of variation in natural systems and increased evaporation (Bonsal et al. 2019; Bush et al., 2019). There remains considerable uncertainty, especially in terms of predicting the timing, magnitude and direction of changes in precipitation. For example, while there do not appear to be detectable trends in short-duration extreme precipitation events in Canada (Zhang et al., 2019), other studies find increasing trends in extreme precipitation events over large portions of North America (Kirchmeier-Young and Zhang, 2020; Paplexiou and Montanari, 2019). Unfortunately there is no consensus in the literature, largely because rainfall is extremely difficult to simulate, especially summertime convection. Ultimately, reported changes are really a patchwork of different changes across Canada that are heavily influenced by such things as latitude, altitude and proximity to lakes, which makes a pan-Canadian assessment very local by necessity. Additionally, human management decisions related to land-use, water management and changing socioeconomic conditions (Bonsal et al., 2019; Statistics Canada, 2017), can reduce or exacerbate climate change-driven processes, and can impact the water cycle on the same order of magnitude as hydroclimatic changes (Döll et al., 2015). For example, while some climate change processes have been linked to deterioration of water quality in Canada, a number of studies have also found strong links to land-use intensification with agricultural production and urban development (Weiss et al., 2018; El-Khoury et al., 2015; Gooré Bi et al., 2015; Jalliffier-Verne et al., 2015; Taranu et al., 2015). These human management elements introduce considerable uncertainties into future projections and complexities into future decision making (see Case Story 4.1).

Map of Canada with short descriptions of water resource events across the country. The types of events include ice melt, permafrost thaw and shorter duration of snow cover, water quality issues and ecosystem impacts, soil moisture deficits and drought, and extreme precipitation and flooding. — Figure 4.1

Download

Share

-

Case Story 4.1

Extreme water level variability on the Great Lakes

The Great Lakes are the largest surface freshwater system on Earth and serve the diverse needs of 30 million people. Water levels across the Great Lakes were very high throughout 2019 and have continued to be high in 2020, approaching or exceeding seasonal or all-time record-high water levels at various times throughout the year. During 2019, Lake Superior, Lake Saint Clair, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario all met or exceeded all-time record high levels for the period of record of 1918‒2018. In the case of Lake Ontario, the new record-high level set in 2019 exceeded the previous record-high level set only two years prior in 2017. Lake Michigan‒Huron, which came very close to record highs in the summer of 2019, remained high through the fall, and was above seasonal records in the winter and spring of 2020. High water levels have caused flooding and erosion along the shorelines of all the Great Lakes, with enhanced local impacts during storm events generating wind-driven wave action (see Figure 4.2; Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2019; Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee, 2018). While it is outside of the Great Lakes basin, the Ottawa River experienced its largest spring flows on record in 2019, surpassing its previous record reached just two years before, in 2017 (Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, 2019), which caused flooding throughout the Ottawa River basin and downstream on the St. Lawrence River. Communities battled emergency conditions, and water regulators attempted to balance upstream and downstream flooding conditions (Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board, 2019; Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee, 2018; International Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River Board, 2018). Only six short years earlier, shoreline communities on the Upper Great Lakes had been adjusting to a fifteen-year period of very low water levels, with Lake Michigan‒Huron at an all-time record low level in the winter of 2013 (Gronewold et al., 2016; McNeil, 2019).

Figure 4.2

Download

-

Figure 4.2

Record high water levels and flooding on a dock near Saint Catharines, ON (left), and a walkway near Ontario Place in Toronto, ON (right).

Source

Photos courtesy of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

While water level fluctuations are normal on the Great Lakes, these extreme shifts between record low and high water levels fit the pattern of what would be expected under a changing climate. Projections for the future are not simply that water levels in the Great Lakes will trend up or down, but rather that they will experience more frequent periods of very high or very low levels (Gronewold and Rood, 2019; Mailhot et al., 2019; Music et al., 2015; Notaro et al., 2015). Extreme water levels have occurred in the recorded past (1918‒2018) (Canadian Hydrographic Service, 2019; Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2019), and therefore it is difficult to determine whether the record-breaking conditions in 2017 and 2019 are extraordinarily rare events for the climate in this region, or moderately rare events in a climate that is changing (Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee, 2018). An event attribution study by Teufel et al. (2019) shows that events such as the heavy April 2017 precipitation accumulation over the Ottawa River basin are between two and three times more likely to occur in the present-day climate than they were in the pre-industrial climate, as the current warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. The record high and low water levels across the Great Lakes are a clear reminder that these types of extreme conditions are not only plausible, but are indeed occurring, with growing evidence of linkages to climate change. Planning is difficult in this context, as shoreline communities struggle to adjust and adapt to uncertain future conditions (Gronewold and Rood, 2019).

Adaptation planning must manage uncertainty, rather than try to avoid it (Kwakkel et al., 2016). Emerging insights from adaptive management theory and practice suggest that building resilience―the ability to withstand a wide range of scenarios―into both human and ecological systems is an effective way to cope with environmental change characterized by future uncertainty (Pahl-Wostl, 2008; Panel on Adaptive Management for Resource Stewardship, 2004). Adaptive management techniques allow planners and practitioners to move forward with decisions and actions that meet current needs and conditions, and then to respond with modifications if conditions change in an unanticipated manner (Land Trust Alliance, 2019; Wood et al., 2017). The International Joint Commission has adopted such an adaptive management approach as a means of dealing with future uncertainty on the Great Lakes (see Case Story 4.5 and Section 4.4.5 for examples in the Great Lakes Region).

4.2.2

Climate trends and projections

Combined changes in precipitation phase (e.g., rain or snow), earlier snowmelt, ice cover retreat and decreasing glacier mass affect Canadian river flows and lake levels. Future trends identified in Canada’s Changing Climate Report (Bush and Lemmen, 2019) and other studies, include:

Less water availability in southern basins, particularly in the summer. Precipitation will continue to increase in the short term for all seasons, but summer rainfall in southern Canada is projected to decrease in a high emissions scenario near the end of the century (Zhang et al., 2019). Along with increasing evaporation rates, early snowmelt and less ice, this trend is expected to contribute to reduced annual flows in southern interior basins and southern lake levels (Bonsal et al., 2019), potentially initiating social and ecological conflict over increasingly scarce water resources in some basins (Clark et al., 2017).
Increased frequency and intensity of water-related extremes. Some conditions that increase the potential for flooding, such as extreme rainfall events, are projected to be more common in the future, escalating the potential for rain-generated local flooding, particularly in urban areas (Zhang et al., 2019). Extreme precipitation events can lead to the loss of human life and property destruction (Simonovic, 2017), and can affect mining operations, energy transmission and tourism infrastructure (Kovacs and Thistlethwaite, 2014; Lemmen et al., 2014), as well as increase soil erosion and nutrient runoff, degrading water quality (Campbell et al., 2014; Crossman et al., 2013). Extreme summer dry periods are expected to increase in frequency and will contribute to soil moisture deficits leading to drought, particularly across the southern Prairies and in the interior of British Columbia (Bonsal et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019).
Reduced water quality and more harmful algae blooms. There is significant potential for climate change to exacerbate current water quality issues (Liu et al., 2019; Gooré Bi et al., 2015; Jalliffier-Verne et al., 2015). In particular, it is anticipated that warmer temperatures will contribute to additional occurrences of harmful algae in the future, particularly where nutrient concentrations are already elevated (Orihel et al., 2017; Paterson et al., 2017).

Climate change influences on the water cycle are already impacting Canadian food, energy and natural resource sectors, communities, and the natural environment. For example, property and casualty insurance payouts from extreme weather events have more than doubled every five to ten years since the 1980s, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that for every dollar of insured loss, home and business owners and governments spend three to four dollars for uninsured losses (Moudrak et al., 2018). Since 2009, insured losses from catastrophic severe weather events in Canada, such as flooding, have averaged $1.4 billion per year, compared to an average of $400 million per year prior to this (Insurance Bureau of Canada, 2019b).

The current reality for water practitioners in every part of Canada is that design and operational protocols for water resources management are almost exclusively based on a historical understanding of the resource. However, as we move into the Anthropocene (i.e., the era in which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment), indications are that the future will no longer resemble the past. Adapting to new changes is made more complex by the interaction of climate change with human development and by rapidly changing socioeconomic conditions. While uncertainties create challenges for adaptation, they should not be an impediment to action. Instead, they can serve as a call to address uncertainty, and to develop more robust management systems that can cope with variability. The remainder of this chapter provides a national perspective on adaptation efforts in the water resources sector, with a focus on how governments, communities and civil societies are adapting to complex and uncertain change.

4.3

Effective coordination across complex water systems enhances adaptation

Canadian governance of water resources involves primarily the provincial and municipal/regional governments with involvement from federal and Indigenous governments, along with civic societal organizations such as watershed groups, environmental organizations, philanthropic foundations and scientific and research groups. Capacity challenges often occur in rural, northern and Indigenous communities. Coordination, sharing agreements and partnerships enhance the capacity to self-organize, share risk, and incorporate multiple sources of knowledge (e.g., scientific, Indigenous, social, practitioner). Networks enhance institutional capacity to address the uncertainty posed by climate change, and they support local organizations, help to share risk, and incorporate new forms of knowledge. Watershed organizations, such as Ontario’s Conservation Authorities, and transboundary organizations, such as the International Joint Commission, exemplify the benefits and challenges of coordination around shared water resources.

4.3.1

Introduction

A common climate change adaptation strategy involves coordination across organizations and institutions. An organization is a group of people devoted to a particular purpose, such as research or a business aim, while an institution is a type of formal organization, and also refers to systems of practices, norms and formal laws or policies (Hulbert and Gupta, 2017). For example, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is an organization providing world leadership and expertise in international cooperation in the delivery and use of high-quality, authoritative weather, climate, hydrological and related environmental services by its members. The WMO facilitates an international greater good, while member countries maintain sovereignty and provide funding to the WMO to maintain this oversight role. The Global Institute for Water Security at the University of Saskatchewan and the Water Institute at the University of Waterloo are examples of institutions that function similarly to an organization. The broader definition of water institutions also refers to formal water laws and policies (e.g., the Water Sustainability Act in British Columbia), water governance arrangements (e.g., Conservation Districts in Ontario), market-based mechanisms (e.g., Alberta’s water market), public opinions about water and climate change, and attitudes towards public and private ownership, among other things. Organizations are governed by rules and regulations, whereas institutions are governed by customs and values. Canadian water institutions have deeply engrained patterns of how we manage water, and they are in the process of adapting to climate-related water risks through new institutional arrangements, enhanced coordination, risk sharing and capacity building (Global Water Futures, 2020). Coordination allows institutions to respond more quickly and effectively to the challenges of an uncertain climate by defining clear roles, fostering information sharing and mobilizing additional resources (Hurlbert and Diaz, 2013; Bakker and Cook, 2011). Risk-sharing tools distribute capacity to prepare for climate change impacts (Thistlethwaite and Henstra, 2017).

In Canada, the constitutional division of power between federal, provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments, and the role of municipal and regional organizations means that adaptation in the water sector often occurs at a variety of scales (Global Water Futures, 2020; Renzetti and Dupont, 2017; Bakker and Cook, 2011; Sandford et al., 2011; Simms and de Loë, 2010). This decentralized context for governance can lead to a mix of outcomes for adaptation in the water sector. On one hand, the fragmentation of governance across multiple authorities can result in inefficiencies and redundancies (Bakker and Cook, 2011) that contribute to unsustainable water use (Renzetti and Dupont, 2017), delayed policy development (Mitchell, 2017), and uneven adaptive capacity across stakeholder groups (Hurlbert and Diaz, 2013). In other circumstances, decentralized governance is inclusive of many groups and can produce outcomes that are responsive to local needs (Bakker and Cook, 2011). Often, intermediary groups such as watershed organizations (see Case Story 4.2) and transboundary water organizations (see Case Story 4.3) can play an important coordination role across various stakeholder groups (Clancy, 2014). Municipalities, Indigenous communities and environmental organizations are also becoming more commonly included in water governance and adaptation activities, in part due to the fact that the federal role in water governance has declined over several decades (see Box 4.1; Renzetti and Dupont, 2017; Hurlbert et al., 2015; Bakker and Cook, 2011; Simms and de Loë, 2010; Hill et al., 2009; Ivey et al., 2004). These diverse sets of new actors often have novel ideas about water management and adaptation to risk that can transform existing institutions (Clancy, 2014).

Ideally, networks and partnerships between governance authorities and stakeholders can play a significant role in strengthening adaptation of the Canadian water sector to climate change (Bauer and Steurer, 2014). Effective coordination implies that programs are necessary, efficient, consistent and comprehensive (de Loë, 2017). Improved water governance arrangements are important for clarifying roles and coordinating policies across all orders of government (Bakker and Cook, 2011; de Loë, 2009), and in sectors beyond water, such as energy and agriculture (de Loë, 2017; Gober, 2013).

Box 4.1

Flood management in Canada

Floods are among the most costly natural disasters in Canada (Insurance Bureau of Canada, 2019b; Public Safety Canada, 2011). Seventy-five percent of annual weather event expenditures under the Federal Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangement program are flood-related (Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 2016).

Historically, the federal government has played a substantial coordinating role in reducing flood risk. In 1970, Canada passed the Canada Water Act to design an enhanced national and comprehensive approach to water management (Watt, 1995). The federal‒provincial/territorial Flood Damage Reduction Program (FDRP) was introduced in 1976 to identify flood hazards, map floodplains, discourage flood-vulnerable development, and encourage effective land use in flood-vulnerable areas. This initiative was a significant shift away from reactive, ad hoc flood policy and towards a proactive approach and preventative philosophy. Between 1976 and 1999, the FDRP was the main mechanism coordinating national action on flood risk reduction, including facilitating cost sharing between governments, supporting the development of flood risk maps, and assisting in the implementation of structural and non-structural methods for flood control (Scott et al., 2017; Thistlethwaite and Henstra, 2017; Watt, 1995). Ultimately, the program designated 320 flood-risk areas covering more than 900 urban communities (Natural Resources Canada, 2018).

Since the FDRP was discontinued in 1999, flood management has become highly fragmented and currently reflects uneven adaptive capacity across the country. A 2014 review of flood risk approaches across Canada found that approximately half of existing flood mapping was completed after the discontinuation of the FDRP (MMM Group, 2014), with 59% of these instances being in Ontario, 21% in Quebec, 10% in British Columbia, and the remaining 10% distributed across the rest of the country. A more recent study found that, while many Canadian municipalities have some sort of flood map, most of these maps are of poor quality and are ill-suited for communicating flood risk to the public (Henstra et al., 2019a). Institutional fragmentation appears to be a particular challenge to building resiliency. In interviews with city officials in 15 major Canadian cities, Feltmate and Moudrak (2015) found that cities have made minimal flood preparations in areas where they have limited or shared jurisdiction, such as food, electricity and petroleum supply. Similarly, Morrison et al. (2018) interviewed experts in the Canadian Prairie provinces, and identified the lack of coordination between the various agencies responsible for flood risk management as a challenge to building resiliency, resulting in a duplication of efforts, siloed expertise and gaps in responsibilities.

The Federal Flood Mapping Guideline Series provides governments and organizations with resources, technical guidance and support for conducting risk assessments and floodplain mapping. The first document in the series, released in 2018, will facilitate a common national best practice and will increase the sharing and use of flood hazard information (Natural Resources Canada, 2018). Also, Natural Resources Canada and Public Safety Canada released the Federal Hydrologic and Hydraulic Procedures for Flood Hazard Delineation in 2019, which provides technical guidance to support the development of flood hazard maps in a Canadian jurisdiction, including on different types of flooding and how to consider climate change in the flood mapping process. In recent years, all levels of governments have been investing to update flood maps across Canada, which are outdated and lack consistent standards. Although there are examples of communities and jurisdictions incorporating climate change into flood mapping (Natural Resources Canada and Public Safety Canada, 2018), there is a need for further overarching guidance on how to address the potential impacts of climate change on floodplain mapping in Canada.

4.3.2

Transboundary and watershed organizations

Canadian water organizations with mandates spanning jurisdictional boundaries and involving a variety of stakeholders have built cooperative institutional structures to promote shared understanding, trust and capacity for addressing complex and contentious water management challenges in a coordinated fashion. These groups can effectively link decision-making processes and priorities across scales and regions, and they are well-positioned to continue to drive participatory and adaptive water governance (Rouillard and Spray, 2017; Mguni, 2015; Cook et al., 2013). Transboundary organizations are expected to be particularly important in addressing potential interregional or international water conflicts that may be exacerbated by climate change (De Stefano et al., 2012). However, the ability of these organizations to continue to collaborate and respond to increasing risks posed by climate change has not been sufficiently studied (Akamani and Wilson, 2011).

A variety of regional organizations with water management mandates exist in Canada, many of them based on watershed boundaries rather than political boundaries. Examples include Alberta’s Watershed Planning and Advisory Councils, Saskatchewan’s Watershed Associations, Manitoba’s Watershed Districts, Quebec’s organismes de bassins versants, watershed groups in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and water boards in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Some of these groups have legislative authority, such as Ontario’s Conservation Authorities (see Case Story 4.2), others are financially supported by provincial government programming, such as in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, while others exist as non-profit organizations or citizen-run groups, such as the Fraser Basin Council in British Columbia (Scott et al., 2017; Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2016). These groups have played key roles in coordinating action on adaptation planning across the country (Oulahen et al., 2018; Mitchell et al., 2014; Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources, 2011; Sandford et al., 2011). The watershed approach to governance can link land use and water management activities, and enable collaboration between a variety of upstream and downstream stakeholders (Mguni, 2015).

Case Story 4.2

Ontario Conservation Authorities and climate change adaptation in the Lake Simcoe Watershed

Ontario Conservation Authorities are 36 watershed-based partnerships between municipalities and the Province with legislative authority “to undertake watershed-based programs to protect people and property from flooding, and other natural hazards, and to conserve natural resources for economic, social and environmental benefits” (Conservation Ontario, 2020; Scott et al., 2017). Conservation Authorities were originally formed to foster greater cooperation and collaboration among the various groups involved in water management (Mitchell et al., 2014), and now play a key role in building resilience to water-related risks (Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources, 2011). For instance, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA; see Figure 4.3) was one of the partners involved in a multi-partner pilot project to develop a climate change adaptation strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed in Ontario. This watershed encompasses about 330,000 ha, is home to approximately 350,000 people, and generates over $200 million annually for the local economy, primarily through agriculture and recreation (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2016; Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources, 2012).

The climate change adaptation plan was made possible through a number of enabling legislative and policy mechanisms, including the Lake Simcoe Protection Act (the first legislation in Canada to focus on a single watershed), the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (the first plan in Ontario to integrate climate change considerations) and Ontario’s Climate Ready: Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (2011‒2014) (Lemieux et al., 2014). With other partners, the LSRCA identified current and future climate change vulnerabilities, such as the drying of wetlands and spread of aquatic invasive species, using future scenarios of climate and non-climate stressors. The team solicited adaptation ideas and prioritized them with an expert panel, organizing them into themes of engaging people (e.g., ensuring community engagement and interagency cooperation and coordination), reducing threats (e.g., encouraging and supporting water conservation), enhancing adaptive capacity (e.g., determining how well plans account for and protect important natural assets) and improving knowledge (e.g., instituting standardized monitoring of species at risk) (Lemieux et al., 2014).

Figure 4.3

Download

-

Figure 4.3

Map of the Lake Simcoe Watershed in Ontario.

Source

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2016

The LSRCA is currently engaged in updating and improving the adaptation plan for the Lake Simcoe Watershed. In the meantime, it is building resilience to climate change impacts primarily through promoting low-impact development projects such as natural infrastructure (see Section 4.6.3), and through implementing a new Phosphorus Offsetting Policy. Excess phosphorus from land-use activities and their consequences, such as agriculture and urban runoff, is a major threat to the current health of Lake Simcoe, degrading water quality and leading to excessive growth of aquatic plants and algae (Weiss et al., 2018; Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2017). Climate change is exacerbating this process by contributing to more extreme rainfall events and by changing the timing of seasonal flows, affecting runoff volumes into the lake (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2013). The LSRCA has been working with partners to improve urban storm water management, and has introduced an offsetting policy that requires new development to control 100% of the phosphorus leaving their property (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, 2019).

There are also a variety of transboundary water organizations in Canada. The most prominent of these is the International Joint Commission (IJC), established under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. The IJC is a binational institution for the resolution of water disputes and cooperation on water policy priorities across the U.S.‒Canada border. There are a total of 13 transboundary water systems governed by the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, including the Osoyoos, Kootenay and Columbia rivers, the Saint Mary and Milk rivers, the Souris River, the Red River, the Rainy River and Lake of the Woods, the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River (see Case Story 4.3), Lake Champlain and the Richelieu River, and the Saint Croix River. Many of these transboundary systems have IJC boards, studies and committees dedicated to binational water management issues. Other transboundary organizations and agreements address interjurisdictional drainage basins, such as the Prairie Provinces Water Board (the 1969 Master Agreement on Apportionment), the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (1983 Agreement Respecting Ottawa River Basin Regulation) and the Mackenzie River Basin Board (the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement).

Case Story 4.3

The International Joint Commission and the Great Lakes Region

The role of the International Joint Commission (IJC) in the Great Lakes Region demonstrates successful coordination of policy design and implementation in a decentralized context. The Great Lakes Region is home to one of the largest freshwater basins on earth, serving more than 30 million people. Regional water governance is characterized by a complex set of policies and arrangements involving two countries, more than 75 First Nations communities along the coasts, eight states and two provinces, numerous municipalities, and a variety of users and stakeholders with different roles and concerns. While outstanding policy issues remain, the United States and Canada have slowed substantial ecological damage in the basin (Renzetti and Dupont, 2017; Carmichael and Boyer, 2016), with the IJC playing a key role in coordinating engagement across stakeholder groups, and completing technical and policy work around issues such as regulating shared water uses and water quality (Johns, 2017). Notable activities and accomplishments recognized internationally (United Nations, 2015) include the following:

Large transboundary integrated assessments, such as the Lake Ontario‒St. Lawrence River Study (1990‒2005) and the International Upper Great Lakes Study (2007‒2012). These studies resulted in flexible management plans and operating rules to respond to climate variability and uncertainty (see Case Story 4.5; International Upper Great Lakes Study Board, 2012, 2009; Stakhiv et al., 2006).
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement to maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem. The Great Lakes Water Quality Protocol of 2012, enacted under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, is one of the only transboundary coordinating instruments in the world to explicitly address the impacts of climate change on water quality (United Nations, 2015; Government of Canada and Government of the United States of America, 2012).
A Climate Change Framework (2018) providing guidance for transboundary IJC boards for addressing climate change in policy and operations to maintain the resilience of Canada‒U.S. water systems (IJC, 2018).

Some of the success of the IJC can be credited to its multi-disciplinary teams, meaningful engagement with stakeholders, and willingness to incorporate new ways of learning and information sharing (Straith et al., 2014).

While transboundary organizations are strong coordinating forces in the Canadian water sector, their mandates and water sharing agreements rarely take into account climate change. Vulnerabilities such as the absence of flow apportionment agreements or drought provisions in periods of low or variable flow have been noted in the Columbia River Basin (Garrick, 2017) and the Red River Basin (de Loë, 2009). The Prairie Provinces Water Board, which oversees water sharing among Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, has explicitly considered climate change and drought as key stressors in technical work, but finds it more difficult to take into account changing and uncertain socioeconomic factors, such as voluntary water sharing (Global Water Futures, 2020). The IJC considers climate change in multiple products, including in a framework to guide climate change considerations across transboundary boards (IJC, 2018), in the climate change impacts annex in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (United Nations, 2015) and in the creation of the Great Lakes‒St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee (IJC, 2015). An adaptive management approach to transboundary management can be an effective way to respond to changing circumstances and may include the following: periodic reviews; limited terms; special provisions for meeting environmental water needs; mechanisms for dealing with extreme circumstances, such as floods and droughts; information sharing; and the creation of organizations that are empowered by the parties to make adjustments in response to changing circumstances (see Section 4.4; de Loë, 2009).

While transboundary water organizations strengthen Canada’s ability to adapt, the existence of these organizations alone is not sufficient. A lack of leadership in coordinating action and a failure to sustain policy attention have been noted as issues impeding progress in both the Great Lakes Region (Johns, 2017) and the Mackenzie River Basin (Morris and de Loë, 2016).

4.3.3

Adaptive capacity and the changing nature of water governance

Access to adequate technical, human, social and financial capital is critical to adaptive capacity in the water sector (Hurlbert and Diaz, 2013; Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources, 2011). Practitioners in the field point to declining technical skills and resources (ICF, 2018; Hamlet, 2011; Patino, 2010), employee turnover and burnout (Global Water Futures, 2020; Moncrieff-Gould et al., 2018; Straith et al., 2014), and a lack of stable funding (Moncrieff-Gould et al., 2018) as challenges to adaptation in the water sector (McMillan et al., 2019; Oulahen et al., 2018). Contextual, place-based knowledge, networks, and a wide range of interdisciplinary skills are all assets in enhancing a community’s ability to respond, survive and adapt to climate-related situations such as extreme events (Global Water Futures, 2020; Straith et al., 2014).

Capacity challenges are often more evident in communities and organizations that are most vulnerable to water-related risks of climate change, including in rural, northern and Indigenous communities (Global Water Futures, 2020; Archer et al., 2017; Ecology North, 2017; Clancy, 2014; Willox et al., 2013; Ford and Pearce, 2010; Wall and Marzall, 2006; Ivey et al., 2004). As a result, such organizations and communities are unevenly prepared for the water-related impacts of climate change. Financial resource constraints are particularly challenging for non-governmental groups and local communities. Many non-governmental water organizations are volunteer-based, or lack streamlined, stable core-funding opportunities to engage in effective networking with each other and with the public about water-related issues (Global Water Futures, 2020; Mitchell et al., 2014; Telfer and Droitsch, 2011). Similarly, those in rural and Indigenous communities are more susceptible to disruptions to reliable income sources, such as flooding on cropland or culturally significant foraging areas (Fletcher and Knuttila, 2018; Lemmen et al., 2014; Wandel et al., 2010; Wall and Marzell, 2006). However, communities that have recently experienced water-related natural hazards, such as flooding or drought, are generally more adaptive than those lacking this experience (Di Baldassarre et al., 2015). For example, the long history of extreme climate variability experienced by rural communities in the Canadian Prairies has generally increased adaptive capacity across the region, through adaptations such as the expansion of irrigation infrastructure and crop diversification (see Prairie Provinces chapter; Kulshreshtha et al., 2016; Hurlbert and Diaz, 2013).

Significant progress has been made towards climate change adaptation in North America at the municipal level (Canadian Water Network, 2019; Oulahen et al., 2018). Municipalities, however, often lack capacity to raise the revenue necessary to maintain and upgrade infrastructure, despite being responsible for 60% of public infrastructure across Canada (Global Water Futures, 2020; Moncrieff-Gould et al., 2018; Thistlethwaite and Henstra, 2017; Miller, 2015). While about half of municipalities have undertaken a risk assessment of their water-related assets, fewer than 20% have formally introduced climate change adaptation strategies (Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, 2016). Others have not carried out any assessment whatsoever of their community’s vulnerability to specific climate change impacts (McMillan et al., 2019). As such, communities are unevenly prepared to handle water-related extremes like floods (Feltmate and Moudrak, 2015).

Indigenous communities have displayed remarkable resilience in the face of considerable and rapid change over the past century. In northern Canada, where the temperature is warming three times faster than the global average (Bush and Lemmen, 2019), the impacts of climate change have been felt acutely by Inuit communities in changing patterns of sea ice, thawing permafrost and the loss of snow and ice cover (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2019). Communities have already had to modify behaviour to cope with these rapid changes, including hunting in boats on open water rather than from ice floes, using all-terrain vehicles instead of snowmobiles, and utilizing sea routes rather than inland routes damaged by permafrost thaw (Berkes and Armitage, 2010). High levels of adaptive capacity exist in Inuit communities, via knowledge systems that incorporate change and uncertainty, and through adaptive practices, such as diversifying the timing and type of land-based activities (Cameron et al., 2015; Ford et al., 2015; Berkes and Armitage, 2010). However, adaptive capacity may not be able to keep pace with the rapid rate of environmental change in the north. Furthermore, many traditional Inuit strategies to manage change continue to be undermined by colonial processes that have severely affected Indigenous populations in the Arctic (Ford et al., 2017; Ford et al., 2015). Indigenous communities elsewhere in Canada face similar challenges, including the effects of industrial pollution, the downstream impacts of hydropower dam operations, and on-going socioeconomic issues, such as high costs of living and limited employment opportunities, many of which stem from the continuing legacy of systemic racism and colonial policies (Global Water Futures, 2020; Archer et al., 2017; Thompson, 2015; Castleden and Skinner, 2014; Clancy, 2014; Magzul and Rojas, 2006). These compounding factors inhibit the ability of these communities to consider and undertake water resource adaptation planning. Competing priorities and limited human and technical capacity mean that communities are not always able to take advantage of financial resources to promote and implement adaptation plans, even when such resources are available (Ecology North, 2017; Ford and Pearce, 2010).

To increase adaptive capacity, organizations across Canada are creating partnerships to address the water-related risks of climate change. Partnerships exist across different scales (national, regional and local) and types of organizations (government, industry, academia, civil society), and facilitate information sharing (Straith et al., 2014), trust building and cooperation (Moore et al., 2014; Patino, 2010), as well as adding technical and human resources (Global Water Futures, 2020; Dale et al., 2019; Hamlet, 2011; Cohen et al., 2006).

National and international institutions also support local self-organization and social networking around water issues. For example, a key facilitator of adaptation at the municipal level is the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), a network of local governments and staff that provide technical capacity and networking opportunities. Working with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, ICLEI is a key driver of municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and climate change adaptation in Canada (Dale et al., 2019; Guyadeen et al., 2018). While many provinces have released guidelines or funding programs supporting adaptation at the local level, Ontario was the first province to enact regulations requiring municipalities to consider climate change in asset management planning in 2017 (Canadian Water Network, 2019). In other provinces, key water-related policies, such as the Water Modernization Act in British Columbia, the 25 Year Water Security Plan in Saskatchewan and Guides to Water Withdrawal Approvals in Nova Scotia, are instrumental in supporting social networks and self-organization. For example, policies may provide extension services through field days and meetings, piloting the application of suggested practices, supporting local advisory committees, and offering workshops in key areas such as new standards and guidelines (Bizikova et al., 2013).

Risk-sharing policy tools are another way of enhancing capacity to address water-related climate change issues. There are a variety of risk-sharing tools available to Canadian municipalities to address flood risk, including disaster assistance programs that share the cost of recovering from disasters between the federal and provincial governments (e.g., the Ontario Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance Program, the Alberta Disaster Recovery Program, the Saskatchewan Provincial Disaster Assistance Program, etc.) (Morrison et al., 2018; Thistlethwaite and Henstra, 2017). While there is a diversity of policy approaches to flooding in Canada (Morrison et al., 2018), cities do not always take advantage of the full suite of risk-sharing tools available (Thistlethwaite and Henstra, 2017). For example, both Calgary and Toronto attach a fee to property taxes and utility bills to fund flood mitigation and adaptation infrastructure, but do not employ a risk-based charge (a charge that is roughly proportional to the property’s contribution to urban flood risk), as a means of incentivizing the uptake of property-level flood protection (Thistlethwaite and Henstra, 2017). Alternatively, Edmonton, Mississauga, Kitchener and Waterloo are examples of municipalities that charge user fees for storm water management that is roughly based on how much the property contributes to runoff (EPCOR, 2019; Aquije, 2016). While there are many methods to fund storm water management, including property taxes, development charges and intergovernmental transfers, user charges can provide a good balance of stability in revenue intake and equity (Aquije, 2016).

Organizations are finding ways to maintain valuable institutional knowledge while linking to a variety of knowledge communities in order to improve understanding of water management issues and potential solutions. For example, for the Prairie Provinces Water Board, contextual knowledge of working in an interjurisdictional context is very important. To ensure that this knowledge is maintained through turnover in members, the Board has begun a process of succession planning whereby each member identifies an alternate who shares their responsibilities and can therefore act as a replacement as turnover occurs (Global Water Futures, 2020). Indigenous Knowledge is also becoming more explicitly recognized in water research, and in the mandates and practices of water organizations. For example, the Northern Voices, Northern Waters Strategy of the Northwest Territories explicitly includes provisions for recognizing Indigenous rights and considers Indigenous Knowledge equivalent to science (Global Water Futures, 2020; Sandford et al., 2011). Similarly, the Red River Basin Commission signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Southern Chiefs Organization in Manitoba, committing both partners to work collaboratively on issues such as deteriorating water quality and flooding (Southern Chiefs Organization, 2018). In Mittimatalik (Pond Inlet), Nunavut, youth and supporting partners use traditional knowledge from community Elders in tandem with Western scientific methods, such as water sampling, to study the increasing frequency of gastrointestinal illnesses in the community (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2019). Successful integration of Indigenous Knowledge can reveal variables previously unaccounted for (Sandford et al., 2011) and provide additional evidence about the meaning of change (Abu et al., 2019), though it can be challenging in practice (Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017). For example, while the Mackenzie River Basin Board has a mandate to include Indigenous peoples and integrate Indigenous Knowledge, it is difficult to adequately represent the diverse interests and knowledge of the many unique Indigenous communities in the Mackenzie River Basin’s work (Morris and de Loë, 2016).

Partnerships can also involve sharing power over decision making, such as in the case of the co-management arrangements that have resulted from negotiated land claim agreements with Indigenous nations across Canada (Latta, 2018; Zubrycki et al., 2016). For example, in the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie Valley, Sahtu, Gwich’in and Wek’èezhii are four land and water boards that involve the co-management of natural resources by the territorial and federal governments of Canada, and the governments of some of the Indigenous peoples who occupy those territories (Tsatsaros et al., 2018; Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2016). These co-management arrangements have been implemented with mixed success, but, overall, it is believed that they increase access to resources, and contribute to processes of social learning and knowledge exchange―particularly the bridging between Indigenous Knowledge and scientific knowledge (see Section 4.4.4; Mantyka-Pringle et al., 2017; Armitage et al., 2011).

4.3.4

Conclusion

Adaptation offers opportunities to address vulnerabilities in our water resources systems. Overall, progress in coordinating adaptation efforts in the water sector is uneven across Canada. Local communities, and Indigenous and civil society organizations are becoming more involved in water governance, yet often have limited capacity to effectively address impacts from climate changes. New organizational arrangements, such as water-based networks, offer an opportunity to draw on existing capacity and coordinate effectively among the myriad participants involved in adaptation to reduce the water-related risks of climate change.

4.4

Adaptation is advancing through innovation and adaptive management

While institutional barriers remain, innovations around water management and climate change adaptation have occurred across Canada. Innovation in the water sector is driven by leaders who propose new ideas and build coalitions around them, and by the creation of safe spaces for policy experimentation. Exploratory modelling and scenario exercises can build empathy and consensus between stakeholders and lead to the development of low- or no-regret adaptation strategies that perform reasonably well against a wide range of plausible futures. Adaptive management provides a systematic, iterative process of monitoring and adjusting actions to new information and changing circumstances.

4.4.1

Introduction

Managing uncertainty is a key component of adaptation planning in the water resources sector. The same hydrologic or water quality model with slightly different inputs of initial environmental conditions can yield very different results, particularly at local and regional scales where most adaptive action takes place (Gober, 2018). Adaptive management aims to anticipate a wide range of future conditions and to reduce risk exposure (Hurlbert, 2018), leading to decisions that are more robust in the face of these uncertainties.

4.4.2

Institutional barriers to innovation

Inflexible institutional governance, water system design and planning can limit the ability of the water sector to adapt to climate change impacts. Many Canadian water systems were historically designed around the needs of influential regional groups with primarily single-use interest in water, such as irrigation or hydropower (Heinmiller, 2017; Clancy 2014). As such, policy and management failures can result from fixed commitments, such as water allocation rules based on historical appropriation that does not consider ecosystem needs or equitable distribution for newer users (Sandford et al., 2011; Hamlet, 2011). Effective adaptive governance systems are dynamic, analytical, nimble and responsive to current and emerging needs (Cosens et al., 2017; Hurlbert and Diaz, 2013); however, institutional support for flexible, diverse programming to encourage proactive policy design is not always available (Global Water Futures, 2020; Sandford et al., 2011; Ivey et al., 2004). For example, the absence of a flexible regulatory framework and clear legal system around water reuse rights limits the adoption of demand-side management approaches to water conservation in Alberta (Alberta WaterSMART, 2013). Similarly, there is little in terms of water and ecosystem services market development in Canada, which impedes competition for conservation and wetland retention activities on private land (Global Water Futures, 2020). Actions to redesign or improve the institutional systems, including infrastructure upgrades (Sandford et al., 2011), and policy and administration processes (Straith et al., 2014; Patino, 2010), are sometimes accompanied by high financial and political costs that can be a barrier to action.

Despite these institutional barriers, there are pockets of innovation in the water sector across Canada. At the provincial level, the past two decades have seen many water policy reforms, with renewed focus on drinking and source water protection, and a rise in watershed-based decision-making organizations (Bakker and Cook, 2011). Some notable water management modernizations include Alberta’s water markets, the Northwest Territories Northern Voices, Northern Waters strategy, which prioritizes water for nature, and Ontario’s requirements for full-cost pricing and accounting for water supply infrastructure (Global Water Futures, 2020; Bakker and Cook, 2011; Sandford et al., 2011). Innovation often stems from supportive local factors and the creation of safe spaces for policy experimentation (Moore et al., 2014; Straith et al., 2014).

4.4.3

Leadership and water champions

Adaptive organizations and policies require strong leadership to foster an institutional culture of innovation (Dale et al., 2019; Burch, 2010), take necessary risks to carry out mandates (Mitchell, 2017; Morris and de Loë, 2016; Hurlbert and Diaz, 2013), and successfully implement and follow through with adaptation plans (Zubrycki et al., 2016; Simms and de Loë, 2010). Leadership can play an important role in empowering water practitioners to do their best work, especially in a fragmented policy context where there is not always clear authority for adaptation work (Oulahen et al., 2018). For example, in the City of Vancouver, leadership by elected officials and city administrators was identified as critical to advancing flood risk adaptation efforts (Oulahen et al., 2018). Burch (2010) also details the actions of a persuasive practitioner within the City’s Planning Department, who noticed that cultural conflicts between staff in planning and operations were slowing progress on adaptation, and intentionally hired staff who valued inter-departmental collaboration. These actions contributed to a paradigm shift within the City that has led to systems being highly responsive to dealing with a changing climate, given the vulnerabilities of Vancouver and its surrounding municipalities.

Water “champions” propose innovation, build coalitions to support it, and appeal to the interests and concerns of those in the decision-making network (Daniell et al., 2014). These individuals can work inside or outside of an organization (Moore et al., 2014), but are usually more successful if they have implementing capacity (Daniell et al., 2014). They are change agents, highly skilled at recognizing cultural and institutional characteristics that inhibit or promote changes, and strategies that can successfully influence implementation. They usually have strong informal and formal networks, are good communicators who are willing to take necessary risks, and are humble, respectful and open to new ideas. They may also be skillful at managing and brokering relationships between different water communities and other relevant sectors (Hurlbert, 2018; Straith et al., 2014). These skills are fostered by leadership training and negotiating opportunities.

4.4.4

Stakeholder participation and social learning

Social networks and social learning are linked with innovation in water institutions. Social learning means that people learn as part of a group from observing behaviours and their consequences. Social networks connect water practitioners to different types of knowledge and resources, facilitating understanding and trust (Moore et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2010; Folke et al., 2005). Stakeholder engagement that incorporates social learning enables participants to explore adaptation options and confront the inevitable trade-offs associated with them.

Exploration of the future often involves exploratory models and participatory exercises to investigate a range of potential future conditions (Maier et al., 2016). Scenarios are consistent stories about the future for systems that are too complex to predict (Wiek et al., 2015). They cover the range of plausible futures (Lemieux et al., 2014), including rare but potentially devastating events such as the failure of critical infrastructure or energy systems. Scenario development often involves local stakeholders who share their (often competing) views of the future to facilitate robust decision making (see Case Story 4.4 and Case Story 4.5; White et al., 2015). A goal of these exercises is to develop strategies that perform reasonably well against a wide range of plausible climate change and societal forces, even when confronted by surprise circumstances (Lempert et al., 2003). They provide a solid basis for consensus building and political action among stakeholders with different views of the future, because they provide a reasonable outcome no matter whose view of the future proves to be correct. They can also identify “no” or “low regret” strategies that increase climate resilience and also promote good water management broadly, often at little additional cost. Examples of these types of strategies include the following: enhancing operator training and improving coordination (Casello and Towns, 2017); upgrading monitoring networks contributing to forecasting (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2011); and water conservation and demand management (Mguni, 2015; de Loë et al., 2001). The latter is identified as important in the municipal sector in Ontario and in the Alberta Water for Life Strategy, resulting in an improvement in water use efficiency and productivity in Alberta by 30% between 2005 and 2015 (Alberta Water Council, 2017). In addition, scenarios can help identify potentially maladaptive behaviours, such as increased consumption, that could be associated with major capital projects (de Loë et al., 2001).

Case Story 4.4

Addressing climate vulnerability and sustainable water management in the South Saskatchewan River Basin

Southern Alberta has recently experienced disastrous floods and droughts. Added pressures from a growing economy, an expanding population and changing climate have significantly challenged the management of water resources in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB), and will continue to do so. To address these challenges, the Alberta WaterSMART project worked with representatives from irrigation districts, municipalities and watershed organizations to develop a set of plausible future water supply and demand scenarios for the SSRB. The scenarios linked data from historic drought and flood years with future climate projections, and also considered potential future land use and societal changes, such as wetland restoration, a major forest disturbance in the headwaters, increased water demands and possible decreased flows from the United States of America, resulting from changing glaciers extents and precipitation patterns attributed to climate change.

Working groups were asked to develop a list of adaptation strategies to address the high- and low-flow conditions that could result from each scenario (Alberta WaterSMART, 2016). A suite of performance measures were developed to help participants evaluate the success of each strategy. Performance measures reflected a desired water outcome for the SSRB or its sub-basins, and included metrics such as the “percentage of days when instream fish needs were not met” or “maximum flow violations.” The performance of each adaptation strategy was assessed using a water resources model designed for the SSRB. Participants used results from model runs to sort adaptation strategies into different levels, from strategies that could improve current conditions to those that would make the basin more resilient to climatic changes in the future. Strategies considered most promising by the group of multiple stakeholders for the SSRB included (Alberta WaterSMART, 2016):

developing shortage-sharing frameworks by sub-basin;
restricting greenfield development in the floodplain;
redesigning operating policies for upstream Bow River reservoirs; and
building net storage flow in the Bow River sub-basin.

Case Story 4.5

Lake Superior and Lake Ontario outflow regulation: Addressing uncertainty in Great Lakes water levels

Water levels of the Great Lakes are driven primarily by natural factors, including changes in precipitation and temperature (see Case Story 4.1), but are also partially affected by regulation of outflows from Lake Superior and Lake Ontario through dams and related control structures on the Saint Mary’s River and dams at Cornwall-Massena on the St. Lawrence River. Outflows are managed using regulation plans―rules that guide how much water is released through the regulatory structures under widely varying hydrological and climatic (hydroclimate) conditions to meet the needs of various water-using interests throughout the basin. The International Joint Commission (IJC) conducted studies (International Upper Great Lakes Study Board, 2012; International Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River Study Board, 2006) to evaluate alternative regulation scenarios to address emerging needs and to consider climate change, and also used scenario analysis to review the rules for regulating outflows in the context of climate variability and change, and to better balance the water needs of diverse interests in the region.

The IJC studies included detailed hydroclimatic analysis to inform assessment of the current state of water resources modelling in the region, the construction of a timeline of historical climate variability, and the downscaling of global climate models to understand the impact of climate change on future regional water levels. This analysis revealed considerable uncertainty around how water levels could change in the future, using different hydroclimatic scenarios to represent a wide range of plausible future conditions including:

historical (assumed stationary) climate to anticipate the next 30‒100 years;
a large, 50,000-year sequence of stochastically-generated water supplies to each of the Great Lakes to capture a full range of climate variability (based on historical water supply conditions); and
a changing climate leading to decreased and/or increased water levels.

At the same time, researchers worked with stakeholders to define water interests in the basin, such as hydroelectric generation, commercial navigation, shoreline properties, recreational boating, municipal and industrial water uses and ecosystems, and their potential vulnerabilities to fluctuations in water levels. Performance indicators and/or coping zones (i.e., the range of conditions that would be considered tolerable) were derived for each interest, and a relationship between these and water levels was determined. Public and expert feedback led the Study Boards to recommend that the new regulation plans should improve the health of the environment, minimize damage from water-related natural hazards, and increase or maintain the economic viability of shipping, hydropower, recreation/tourism and industry.

Study participants then tested different sets of regulation plans using a “shared vision model” (SVM), a user-friendly computer platform that allowed the collaborative development of models and operating plans to simulate impacts in the basin. Participants used the SVM to compare the performance of the current regulation plan to that of alternative plans under a range of hydroclimate scenarios, and drew upon the performance indicators and coping zones to explore trade-offs associated with alternative plans.

Through this process, the Study Boards in each study narrowed down alternative regulation plans to those that were more robust to changing conditions, continued to balance upstream and downstream impacts and benefits, and promoted more natural flows and ecosystem benefits under a range of hydroclimatic conditions. After considerable public and government consultation, the IJC implemented a new plan for regulating Lake Superior outflows (Plan 2012) at the beginning of 2015, and in January 2017, adopted Plan 2014 for regulating Lake Ontario outflows. An adaptive management strategy was developed to complement these new regulation plans as a means to review and refine the chosen regulation plans over time if conditions in the system changed. Adaptive management compares observed outcomes through on-going monitoring to the simulated results to improve the simulations over time. The on-going performance of the regulation plans can be assessed under a range of water level conditions and the regulation plans can be formulated and evaluated as more is learned and as conditions change. The final reports from these studies and the adaptive management process are available from the IJC website (ijc.org).

4.4.5

Adaptive management and water experiments

Many water planners seek adaptation measures that are robust under a wide range of possible future climate conditions. While there is no standardized paradigm for quantifying robustness in the water sector (Whateley et al., 2016), the idea of robustness generally implies acceptable performance over a wide range of future scenarios (Lempert and Groves, 2010; Groves and Lempert, 2007; Lempert and Collins, 2007). Therefore, decision makers need the ability to both assess how well decisions meet expectations and to adapt those management decisions as more information is received and conditions change. Adaptive management accepts that decisions are made with imperfect information and under high degrees of uncertainty, and provides a means for reviewing the performance of a decision through on-going monitoring of outcomes and stakeholder preferences, updating the modelling and evaluation tools used in the original decision, and recommending improvements as necessary (see Box 4.2; International Upper Great Lakes Study Board, 2012). In adaptive management, adaptation actions and policies are designed to be flexible and are subject to adjustment in an iterative, social learning process (Lee, 1999).

Box 4.2

Adaptation vs. adaptive management

Adaptation actions are interventions taken to respond to new or different information obtained through monitoring and experience. Simply stated, adaptation is about taking action to change something if it is not working. In current practice, questions of how to measure vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and resilience for effective adaptive actions are a challenge for policy makers and scientists (Lesnikowski et al., 2017). Adaptation is complex across multiple sectors and disciplines, and there is no single, universal metric that fits the reality of adaptation (Ford and King, 2015). In an examination of 15 scientific studies around water resources adaptation strategies, Salerno (2017) found that a common weakness of adaptation strategies is identifying approaches to address uncertainty (Woodruff, 2016). Specifically, adaptation plans commonly fail to provide detailed implementation processes, raising concerns about whether adaptation actions will translate into reductions in vulnerability or maladaptation (Salerno, 2017).

Adaptive management is an approach to adaptation that embraces risk and uncertainty as a way of building understanding based on continuous monitoring, predictive modelling, evaluation and learning. Adaptive management provides a structured, iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with the aim of reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring (Williams and Brown, 2014). Adaptive management recognizes that:

no matter how much we know, there is always more to learn;
conditions are always changing, sometimes in ways that cannot even be imagined, let alone predicted; and
decisions are made based on the best, albeit imperfect, evidence available and may not always be effective.

The concept of adaptive management is to challenge decisions (such as adaptive actions) if outcomes are not as expected and to make necessary adjustments as more is learned and/or as conditions change. Simply put, adaptive management goes further than adaptation by following up on actions to ensure that they are working as intended and, if not, to make adjustments (see Figure 4.4). Adaptive management requires good planning, collaboration and quantitative predictive modelling. A successful adaptive management strategy aims to develop and apply multi-objective, flexible and sustainable solutions through collaborative efforts that include (International Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Task Team, 2013):

monitoring and modelling for improved understanding of:
- why and how conditions are changing;
- existing and potential risks and complexities of problems; and
- performance metrics for understanding the success of options;
tools for developing and evaluating adaptive options;
transparent, accessible information readily available to users;
on-going assessment and evaluation of solutions maintained with feedback to decision-making processes; and
stakeholders that are fully engaged with mechanisms to inform the decision-making process.

Figure 4.4

Download

-

Figure 4.4

Diagram illustrating the adaptive management cycle.

Source

Adapted from International Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Task Team, 2013.

Evidence suggests Canadian water management frameworks vary in their ability to respond to unanticipated events. Bizikova et al. (2013) examined water-related policies in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia to assess the elements representing adaptability, such as multi-stakeholder deliberation, automatic policy adjustment, and integrated and forward-looking analysis. They found that these policies do not always include explicit monitoring and review processes (Bizikova et al., 2013). In some cases, formal reviews were completely absent (Roy, 2013), whereas in other instances, reviews were spontaneous or only done once, not feeding back into formal policy reviews and adjustments (Bizikova and Vodicka, 2013). In about half of the policies examined, a formal review was required, but no public report of this review was available, and no information on subsequent policy adjustment was required (Bizikova et al., 2013). Ultimately, the team examined 27 policies from the water sector, as well as the agriculture and forestry sectors, and scored them using the ADAPTool method, which assesses the adaptability of policies or programs in relation to any defined stressor or external change, such as climate. Despite the wide range of policies making it difficult to compare across jurisdictions, the team found a wide range of adaptability in the policies present (see Figure 4.5). High-scoring policies (in the green zone) were generally not vulnerable themselves to climate change, played a role in building adaptive capacity of groups, and were designed to use multi-stakeholder processes and/or foresight methods such as scenario analysis (Bizikova et al., 2013).

This chart shows that six of the policies scored high on both their “ability to respond to unanticipated events” and their “ability to support anticipated adaptation.” The majority of the reviewed policies were shown to only make marginal contributions to the ability to respond to unanticipated events and to support anticipated adaptation. Three policies did not contribute to the ability to respond to unanticipated events and support anticipated adaptation. — Figure 4.5

Download

Share

-

Adaptive management requires long-term commitments, collaboration (Global Water Futures, 2020) and funding, and an effective linkage of science-based monitoring to decision-making processes (Murphy and Weiland, 2014). While effective adaptive management is difficult to achieve, examples of this are reported in natural resource management broadly (Williams and Brown, 2014) and in the management of water resources in Canada (Failing et al., 2013). The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United States and Canada includes adaptive management as a guiding principle in order to systematically assess the effectiveness of actions and adjust future actions to achieve the ecological integrity and water goals for the basin (IJC, 2017). An even more structured adaptive management effort was initiated for the Great Lakes in 2015 by the IJC with the establishment of the Great Lakes‒St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management (GLAM) Committee to provide on-going review and evaluation of newly implemented regulation plans of outflows from Lake Superior and Lake Ontario (see Case Story 4.5; IJC, 2015). This initiative provides a structured approach to adaptive management to respond to climate changes and links the evaluation of plan performance directly to the IJC as the decision makers (Clamen and MacFarlane, 2018; Great Lakes‒St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee, 2018).

4.5

It is vital to engage the public and build awareness about adaptation opportunities

Successful adaptation requires public buy-in to the science of climate change and the need to implement adaptation policies. A majority of Canadians support policies to address water-related problems, but managing water resources ranks low on their list of salient problems after the economy, health care and cost of living. Extreme events, including floods, droughts and episodes of poor water quality, can often bring the need for better water management to the forefront.

Canadians are concerned about water and want governments to play a strong role in instituting practices that protect water resources and prepare for water-related hazards. Lack of issue salience, misperceptions about how water systems function, and financial and technical barriers can impede the buy-in for climate change adaptation. Water practitioners are fostering public support by emphasizing financial and health-related co-benefits, addressing barriers to action, and taking advantage of highly publicized water-related events. The discourse around options for adaptation in the water sector is expanding to include a wider variety of policy tools to address water issues.

4.5.1

Introduction

Water in Canada is generally perceived to be of high quality, abundant (Renzetti and Dupont, 2017; Royal Bank of Canada, 2017) and our most important resource (Royal Bank of Canada, 2017). However, Canadians make large per capita water withdrawals compared to those in other countries—which include consumptive and non-consumptive uses (Conference Board of Canada, 2013)—and water policy issues are ranked among the lowest in public opinion surveys―regarded as much lower in importance compared to the economy, healthcare and the rising cost of living (see Figure 4.6; Royal Bank of Canada , 2017; Clancy, 2014). These perceptions ultimately influence policy development (Heinmiller, 2017; Yates et al., 2017; Clancy, 2014) and can challenge efforts to implement adaptation strategies (Dale et al., 2019).

This line graph shows the percentage of survey respondents who indicated concern with a variety of issues. Notably, in 2017, cost of living, availability of adequate health care, economic problems, and poverty were more concerning to Canadians than water quality in lakes, rivers, and streams, freshwater supply, and drinking water quality over the long-term. — Figure 4.6

Download

Share

-

Practitioners in the water sector are working to influence perceptions in favour of proactive adaptation in the water resources sector (Global Water Futures, 2020). While improved scientific understanding can highlight trends, vulnerabilities and potential solutions to technical water management issues, decision makers must satisfy multiple, and often conflicting, needs and objectives (Bakker and Cook, 2011), and require processes that are responsive to public attitudes. Political turnover and the short time scales available for planning exacerbate this challenge (Dale et al., 2019; Hurlbert and Diaz, 2013; Hamlet, 2011).

4.5.2

Perceptions of water and climate

Perceptions about policy issues are important because they influence judgments around the acceptability or appropriateness of proposed solutions (Stone, 2002). According to surveys, most Canadians believe that climate change is occurring (Mildenberger et al., 2016; Lachapelle et al., 2014), and that climate change will have a negative impact on Canada’s supply and quality of fresh water (Royal Bank of Canada, 2017). They expect more frequent and intense extreme storms, flooding of rivers and coastal areas, and lengthy droughts (Akerlof et al., 2010). Despite these concerns, Canadians’ level of preparedness for water-related extremes has remained low for a number of years. In a survey by Royal Bank of Canada (2017) of over 2,000 Canadians, only 35% reported that they are prepared to deal with floods and drought. In another survey, almost all of the 2,300 Canadians surveyed believed that homeowners are primarily responsible for flood protection, but less than 30% pursue protective measures and only 6% know whether they live in a designated flood-risk area (Henstra et al., 2019b; Thistlethwaite et al., 2017).

Despite some skepticism, there is widespread support for climate policy and government action to protect water resources as an alternative to “doing nothing” (Comeau, 2017; Mildenberger et al., 2016). Canadians want governments to play a strong role in managing water resources and in preparing for natural hazards (see Figure 4.7; Henstra et al., 2019b; Royal Bank of Canada, 2017), to enforce stricter regulations, and to require commercial and industrial users to pay full water supply costs (Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia, 2018; Royal Bank of Canada, 2017). This support can diminish, however, due to issue fatigue and politicization of the climate change issue (Groulx et al., 2014; Pidgeon, 2012).

Bar graph shows that most Canadians believe that insurance companies should have a role in paying for damage from flooding. Municipal governments, provincial governments, the Government of Canada, and homeowners share this responsibility with insurance companies, but to a lesser degree. According to the survey, government at various levels, homeowners, and insurance companies should all play a role in protecting against flood risk. — Figure 4.7

Download

Share

-

4.5.3

Building public support for adaptation

The inconveniences of maintenance and the “invisible” nature of water services are additional challenges to garnering public support for adaptation in the face of a changing climate (Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, 2015). Quite literally, most water-related water infrastructure is “out of sight, out of mind.” Most water managers and regulators view ageing infrastructure as the most prominent future risk to the Canadian water sector (Global Water Futures, 2020; Moncrieff-Gould et al., 2018), yet only one in five Canadians believe that major investments in water-related infrastructure are required (Royal Bank of Canada, 2017). Building public support through emphasizing health, economic and environmental benefits of investments in water systems may increase the likelihood that decision makers will set water systems as a priority for action (Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, 2015). This process can involve framing water-related climate information in positive terms paired with consistent and constructive solutions (Global Water Futures, 2020; Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, 2015; Patino, 2010), mainstreaming climate solutions within other policy areas such as urban development (Dale et al., 2019) and engaging stakeholders early and substantively in adaptation processes (Lemieux et al., 2014).

Canadians want information about water-related risks to be relevant to the issues that they care about, and want to know what to do with that information (Jones-Bitton et al., 2016; Henrich et al., 2015; Groulx et al., 2014). A recent survey of 2,300 Canadian households found that 92% of respondents want publicly available flood risk maps with flood mitigation information, and want access to this information when they are considering home ownership (Thistlethwaite et al., 2017). The climate change dimension may not matter if the benefits of the adaptation actions align with important values held by the target audience and lead to co-benefits. For example, despite the benefits for climate resilience, improved water quality is the main motivator for farmers restoring wetlands in Nova Scotia (Sherren and Verstraten, 2013). Other studies have found that framing water management policies in terms of personal benefits, such as a lower cost of living, sustainable economic development, and lower incidence of disease, have more appeal to a wider range of people (Henrich et al., 2015; Groulx et al., 2014; Semenza et al., 2011; Akerlof et al., 2010). With the necessary information, individuals who feel personally at risk tend to be more prepared (Semenza et al., 2011).

Financial and time constraints are also issues that can prevent or slow adaptive behaviour (Groulx et al., 2014; Semenza et al., 2011). Efforts to reduce these barriers and promote behavioural change through the formation and dissemination of social norms, self-perception and memory prompts have been effective across Canada (Lieske et al., 2014; Lo, 2013; McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). For example, after identifying financial constraints as a major barrier to the adoption of water conservation behaviours, the City of Barrie, Ontario, introduced a rebate program and an interest-free pay-back scheme for water-efficient appliances and their installation, ultimately deferring millions of dollars in water infrastructure spending (Reily, 2004).

Extreme water-related events, such as floods, droughts and water quality crises, provide a window of opportunity for political and policy action that can enhance long-term climate resilience (Dale et al., 2019; Oulahen et al., 2018). Many successful adaptations in the water sector have been driven by institutional responses to a public crisis (Clancy, 2014). This occurred after floods and freeze-thaw events that caused significant road damages initiated a major adaptation process in Prince George, British Columbia (Dale et al., 2019), and when source water protection was strengthened after water contamination incidents in Walkerton, Ontario (in 2000) and North Battleford, Saskatchewan (in 2001) (Hurlbert et al., 2015; Bakker and Cook, 2011; de Loë and Plummer, 2010). Similarly, significant flooding in 2011 and 2014 to downstream communities in Manitoba brought renewed attention to the flood control benefits of wetland retention, whereas previous attempts focusing on biodiversity protection failed to motivate political action (Global Water Futures, 2020). As a result, the Sustainable Watersheds Act was passed into law in 2018, employing a combination of economic incentives and disincentives, and regulation to promote a “no net loss of wetlands” policy in the province (Stevenson, 2018).

Water practitioners across Canada employ a number of strategies to increase issue saliency around the water-related risks of climate change. They will be required to draw on these strategies and innovate even more as water systems become increasingly complex and uncertain, and the stakes to win over public perceptions become more critical.

4.5.4

Diversifying policy tools

Traditional approaches to water resource issues have been regulatory in nature (Simms and de Loë, 2010), but researchers and practitioners are increasingly recognizing that acting with conventional policy tools will not be enough to adapt to the growing complexity in water systems (Simms and de Loë, 2010; Hurlbert et al., 2010; Okanagan River Basin Board, 2010). Innovations and variation in policy design and implementation can reduce risks, increase the chances of reaching desired outcomes, and meet diverse stakeholder needs (Bizikova et al., 2018; Thistlethwaite and Henstra, 2017). Conversations around policy options and adaptation strategies are expanding at all levels (see Case Story 4.6), and there now exists a diverse mix of regulatory, expenditure, institutional and economic instruments in water policies across Canada (Bizikova et al., 2018).

Case Story 4.6

The changing policy discourse for solutions to water-related hazards in the Canadian Prairies

Much of the population in the Prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba obtains its water from the Nelson-Churchill River Basin, the third largest watershed in North America (see Figure 4.8; International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2016).

Figure 4.8

Download

-

Figure 4.8

The drainage basins of the Nelson and Churchill Rivers.

Source

Manitoba Hydropower, n.d.

In this basin, numerous organizations advocate for diverse approaches to address current water management that will likely be exacerbated by climate change (Global Water Futures, 2020). A wide range of policy approaches is discussed (see Figure 4.9). In policy and planning documents authored by different organizations operating within the basin, infrastructure solutions are the most discussed approach to address floods and droughts across the drainage basin. While built infrastructure approaches are most frequently referenced, natural infrastructure approaches are also mentioned and sometimes preferred, such as in the case of improving water quality (see Table 4.1).

Figure 4.9

Download

-

Figure 4.9

Percentage of dialogue in policy and planning documents across the Nelson‒Churchill basin related to four policy instruments for addressing water issues. See Table 4.1 for specific examples.

Table 4.1

Examples of policy instruments and options to address water-related hazards in the Nelson‒Churchill River Basin

Built infrastructure	Natural infrastructure	Coordination and planning	Regulatory and economic
Dyke and floodway construction Installing tile drainage Upgrading spillways and dams to new design standards for extremes	Retaining and restoring wetlands Increasing soil organic matter on agricultural lands	Emergency response planning Cooperative agreements Coordinated drought and flood plans	Mandated water rationing Legislated penalties for drainage Compensating flood victims Tax credits for riparian (land along the banks of rivers and streams) management Water pricing or surcharges
Source: Global Water Futures, 2020.

Improving coordination and organizational policies across the basin is widely discussed as a means to enhance capacity to respond effectively to water-related hazards. This involves proactive planning (e.g., coordinated strategies for drought, wetlands and drainage, and invasive species), increasing financial and human resource capacity (e.g., reliably funding water resource groups, providing technical support to communities, increasing funding opportunities), and developing operating rules and procedures to enhance resilience to cope with new extremes. An example of the latter is the five-year agreement between TransAlta and the Government of Alberta that allows Alberta Environment and Parks to modify the levels of TransAlta-owned reservoirs on the Bow River for the purposes of enhancing flows during dry years and providing additional storage during wet periods (Government of Alberta, 2018).

There are differences in strategies and advocacy approaches across organizations with different roles in water governance (Global Water Futures, 2020). For example, environmental and non-profit groups tend to favour information provision and community engagement work, and prefer a regulatory-based approach to water management, whereas agricultural and industry organizations preferentially discuss market-based solutions to water management challenges, such as funding infrastructure upgrades to improve efficiencies, subsidizing best management practices and establishing insurance schemes.

4.5.5

Conclusion

Adapting to climate change in the water sector involves strengthening water planning and management capacities and mobilizing public support for investments, and institutional and behavioural change. Multi-sector engagement and enhanced opportunities for social learning amongst scientists, water professionals, civil society organizations and the general public are essential to building a social infrastructure that promotes adaptive decision making in the water sector. Shared learning about the need for action and the consequences of inaction would increase public support for policy action.

4.6

Water system vulnerability can be reduced through quality data and resilient design

Since there are limited resources to address the broad range of complex and widespread water challenges, it is important to identify areas and sectors that are particularly vulnerable to climate change and require specific management attention. To address vulnerabilities, practitioners require access to high quality and locally relevant data. While there are many information sources, at various scales, about water systems and future climate change impacts available across Canada, there is considerable variation in quality, and in temporal and spatial resolution of the available data. Infrastructure design and management is often based on historical information that no longer has the same relevance in a climate change context. Requirements around design, building and operations are changing to address these vulnerabilities. The Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Protocol (Engineers Canada, n.d.) and the use of natural infrastructure have emerged as key tools for addressing the climate change-related vulnerability of water-resource infrastructure in Canada.

4.6.1

Introduction

Climate and water-related vulnerability and risk assessments have been carried out extensively across the country at different scales and for different issues. For example, assessments have been conducted in the Atlantic region for coastal areas and water resources (e.g., AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, 2012; Cochran et al., 2012; Ferguson and Beebe, 2012; Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2012); in Quebec for water quality and water use (e.g., Jalliffier-Verne et al., 2017; Tremblay, 2016; Carrière et al., 2010); in the Great Lakes Region for wetlands and aquatic ecosystems (e.g., Tu et al., 2017; Chu, 2015; Lemieux et al., 2014; Mortsch et al., 2006); in the Prairies for drought and flooding (e.g., Wittrock et al., 2018; KGS Group, 2016; Thomson Agri-Environmental, 2011a, b; Magzul and Rojas, 2006); in British Columbia for hydroelectricity and coastal flooding (e.g., Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd., 2018; Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., 2014; Jost and Weber, 2013); and in Northern Canada for thawing permafrost and vulnerable water supplies (e.g., BGC Engineering, 2011; Goulding, 2011; Nesbitt, 2010).

Syntheses of these assessments emphasize the diversity in methodologies and organizations (e.g., watershed organizations, academia, governments) involved (Perdeaux et al., 2018), as well as the technical challenges in identifying a range of climate change impacts and hazards on water resource systems (Nodelcorp Consulting, 2014). This is especially true for organizations with limited financial and technical capacity (Lemieux et al., 2014; Plummer et al., 2012).

4.6.2

Water information systems

Effective monitoring is a key element of successful adaptation (Hall et al., 2014). Water practitioners require access to high quality and locally relevant data because many fundamental water decisions are local in scale (Global Water Futures, 2020), and good information is necessary to assess vulnerabilities to climate change risks (Canadian Water Network, 2019). Unfortunately, high quality, systematic, regularized data collection is not the norm in many parts of Canada (Nodelcorp Consulting, 2014), and climate change impact data is not always available or linked into decision-making processes (Canadian Water Network, 2019). Key datasets for water practitioners are administered by a variety of federal departments, while provincial and territorial agencies provide information such as snow depth, stream flows and lake levels (see Table 4.2). Non-governmental organizations, such as B.C.’s Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, the Prairie Climate Centre, the Ontario Climate Consortium and Ouranos, provide additional resources such as climate change and hydrologic scenarios. However, capacity to provide this information is uneven across organizations and governments, and data varies significantly in its quality, and temporal and spatial resolution (Koshida et al., 2015; Dunn and Bakker, 2011).

Table 4.2

A collection of national and regional water and climate change datasets, resources and tools

Organization	Resource description	Data type	Scale	Link
Government of Canada	The National Hydro Network (NHN) Geobase Series provides geospatial data and geometric attributes of Canada’s inland surface waters.	Shapefiles	Pan-Canada	https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/a4b190fe-e090-4e6d-881e-b87956c07977
	The Canadian Tides and Water Levels Data Archive contains historical observations from Canadian and global monitoring sites.	Datasets	Pan-Canada (observations for up to 50 years, dating back to 1848)	https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/87b08750-4180-4d31-9414-a9470eba9b42
	The Meteorological Service of Canada 50 North Atlantic Wave Hindcast provides hourly wind and wave time series data from climate hindcast models.	Datasets	Canadian East Coast for the period 1954‒2018	https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/f3f0312d-d28b-400c-b14a-28f51ff7f08a
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)	The Drought Watch website provides information on drought conditions, soil moisture, and other climate variables.	Datasets and online mapping tools	Pan-Canada	http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/programs-and-services/drought-watch/?id=1461263317515
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)	The AAFC Watershed project (2013) provides watershed related datasets for the Prairie provinces. Data includes drainage information, area of drainage, information on gauging stations, etc.	Datasets	Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and some portions of British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Ontario.	https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/c20d97e7-60d8-4df8-8611-4d499a796493
Canadian Center for Climate Services (CCCS)	The CCCS provides access to a variety of climate datasets.	Datasets and online mapping tools	Pan-Canada	https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/canadian-centre-climate-services/display-download.html
Environment and Climate Change Canada	The Water Survey of Canada shows real time and historical hydrometric data collected from stations across Canada.	Datasets and online graphing tools	Pan-Canada	https://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/index_e.html
Fisheries and Oceans Canada	The Canadian Extreme Water Level Adaptation Tool supports the adaptation of coastal infrastructure to water-related extremes.	Online application	Coastline of Canada	http://www.bio.gc.ca/science/data-donnees/can-ewlat/index-en.php
Natural Resources Canada	Canada’s Climate Change Adaptation Platform provides links to various resources to support adaptation planning.	Collaborative forum with resources available for decision makers	Pan-Canada	https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/climate-change/impacts-adaptations/adapting-our-changing-climate/10027
Natural Resources Canada	The Federal Flood Mapping Guidelines Series guide flood-mapping activities across the country (part of Canada’s Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction).	Documents	Pan-Canada	https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/mrgnc-mngmnt/dsstr-prvntn-mtgtn/ndmp/fldpln-mppng-en.aspx
Public Safety Canada	The Canadian Disaster Database provides information on Canadian and international disasters since 1900.	Datasets	Pan-Canada (1900‒present)	https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/cndn-dsstr-dtbs/index-en.aspx
Global Institute for Water Security	The Changing Cold Regions Network provides online access to water-related data and outputs from models and observatories.	Datasets	Pan-Canada	http://www.ccrnetwork.ca/
The Gordon Foundation	DataStream is an open access online data platform for sharing data across diverse data collection programs―from community groups to academic organizations. Datastreams exist for the Mackenzie, Lake Winnipeg and Atlantic Canada watersheds.	Datasets	Mackenzie, Lake Winnipeg and Atlantic Canada watersheds	https://gordonfoundation.ca/initiatives/datastream/
Government of Yukon	The Water Data Catalogue is an interactive map information on near real-time and historical water-related variables.	Interactive map with accessible data sources	Yukon	http://yukon.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2365a4c0b8744f34be7f1451a38493d2
Government of Northwest Territories	The NWT Discovery Portal allows users to browse, share and link a wide range of information, including water-related variables.	Variable	Northwest Territories	http://nwtdiscoveryportal.enr.gov.nt.ca/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page
Government of Northwest Territories	The Inventory of Landscape Change platform is an interactive map showing a variety of water variables.	Spatial data	Northwest Territories	https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/en/services/cumulative-impact-monitoring-program-nwt-cimp/inventory-landscape-change-webviewer
Government of Nunavut	The Nunavut Water Board provides data on water licences and projects across the territory.	Interactive map and data	Nunavut	https://www.nwb-oen.ca/nwb-license-map
Government of British Columbia	The BC Water Resources Atlas displays various detailed water-related data.	Dataset and online mapping tool	British Columbia	http://maps.gov.bc.ca/ess/hm/wrbc/
	Change in Timing and Volume of River Flow in BC is a long-term hydrological dataset from 1912 to 2012.	Datasets, graphs and associated R code	British Columbia	http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/climate-change/rivers.html
	The GeoWeb Water Portal displays historical and current water and climate data for stations across the province.	Interactive map and downloadable datasets	Northern British Columbia	http://waterportal.geoweb.bcogc.ca/#12/54.3891/-126.7240
	BC Water Tool displays watershed reporting, streamflow data, and groundwater and surface water quality data.	Interactive online map and downloadable datasets	Southern and coastal British Columbia	http://kwt.bcwatertool.ca/streamflow
	The Provincial Groundwater Observation Well Network displays data from 190 provincial monitoring stations.	Interactive online map and downloadable dataset	British Columbia	https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/groundwater-wells-aquifers/groundwater-observation-well-network
	Real-time Water Data for snow, groundwater, and hydrometric stations displayed on interactive map.	Interactive map and downloadable datasets	British Columbia	https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-science-data/water-data-tools/real-time-water-data-reporting
	Change in Sea Level in BC (1910‒2014) displays summary trends of sea level observations from four long-term monitoring stations.	Dataset	British Columbia	https://www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/indicators/climate-change/sea-level.html#:~:text=Average%20sea%20level%20has%20risen,centimetres%20per%20century%20at%20Vancouver
Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium	Station Hydrologic Model Output provides simulated streamflow data for locations throughout BC.	Interactive map with downloadable datasets	British Columbia	https://www.pacificclimate.org/data/station-hydrologic-model-output
	Gridded Hydrologic Model Output provides gridded hydrologic projections for four watersheds in the province.	Interactive map with downloadable datasets	British Columbia (Four watersheds)	https://www.pacificclimate.org/data/gridded-hydrologic-model-output
	PCIC’s Climate Explorer visualizes future projections of climate conditions in the Pacific and Yukon regions based on GCM CMIP5 10-km-resolution downscaled data with a daily time resolution.	Interactive map, graphs, downloadable datasets	Pacific and Yukon regions (1961–2099)	https://pacificclimate.org/analysis-tools/pcic-climate-explorer
Fraser Basin Council	The Retooling for Climate Change website supports local governments in preparing for climate change adaptation.	Guidebooks, synthesis reports, and other informational material	British Columbia	https://www.retooling.ca/
University of British Columbia	Future Delta 2.0 is a serious videogame enabling real-time exploration of local climate change scenarios in local settings.	Educational videogame	British Columbia	https://futuredelta2.ca/
Government of Alberta	Surface Water Quality Data users can view and download water quality variables in lakes and rivers across the province.	Datasets and interactive map	Alberta	https://www.alberta.ca/surface-water-quality-data.aspx
	The Alberta River Basins Application is an interactive map showing a variety of near real-time water-related data.	Interactive map and downloadable datasets	Alberta	https://rivers.alberta.ca/
	The Alberta Water Licence Viewer is an interactive web application that allows users to search for existing water licences.	Interactive map	Alberta	http://waterlicences.alberta.ca/
Saskatchewan Water Security Agency	The Lakes and Rivers website section provides near real-time stream flow, water levels and ten-day forecasts.	Hydrographs and streamflow data	Saskatchewan	https://www.wsask.ca/Lakes-and-Rivers/
Saskatchewan Water Security Agency	The Water Wells GIS Web application provides information on Water Wells in Saskatchewan, including information on local lithology, completion date, and well depth.	Interactive map with downloadable datasets	Saskatchewan	https://gis.wsask.ca/Html5Viewer/index.html?viewer=WaterWells.WellsViewer/
Government of Manitoba	The Manitoba Drought Monitor website provides hydrologic forecasts, reports, flood alerts and drought information.	Interactive map and downloadable datasets	Manitoba	https://www.gov.mb.ca/water/drought_condition/
Government of Manitoba	The Hydrologic Forecast Centre provides timely hydrologic forecasts, maps and information for lakes and rivers.	Data and interactive map	Manitoba	https://gov.mb.ca/mit/floodinfo/
Government of Ontario	Far North Major River Systems Maps provide stream and climate monitoring information.	Interactive map and downloadable datasets	Ontario	https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/datasets/major-river-systems-in-the-far-north
	Provincial (Stream) Water Quality Monitoring Network online map provides water chemistry data from sampling sites.	Interactive map and downloadable datasets	Ontario	https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/map-provincial-stream-water-quality-monitoring-network
	Baseline Hydrology Statistics provide data on streamflow regimes for Southwestern Hudson Bay and Nelson River watershed systems. Data includes frequency, timing, duration and discharge at Water Survey Canada gauge locations.	Datasets	Ontario, Southwestern Hudson Bay and Nelson River Watershed	https://www.ontario.ca/data/baseline-hydrology-statistics
	The Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) Curve Lookup is a web-based application for retrieving rainfall IDF curves.	Datasets and online graphing	Ontario	http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/IDF_Curves/terms.shtml
Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC)	The OCC website provides high-quality and regionally specific climate information for decision makers.	Reports and other publications	Ontario	https://climateconnections.ca/programs/
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)	IISD Experimental Lakes Area provides long-term ecosystem and atmospheric datasets―available by request. The metadata includes hydrology, physical limnology, zooplankton, fish, algae ecology, chemistry and meteorology research data.	Metadata	Northwestern Ontario (58 small lakes and their watersheds) (1968‒present)	https://www.iisd.org/ela/science-data/our-data/metadata/
Government of Quebec	Ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques provides hydrological and hydroclimatological forecasts, and historical data.	Datasets	Quebec	https://www.cehq.gouv.qc.ca/prevision/index.asp
Government of Quebec	The Hydroclimatic Atlas of Southern Quebec describes the current and future water regime of southern Quebec.	Interactive map and datasets	Quebec	https://www.cehq.gouv.qc.ca/hydrometrie/index.htm
Government of New Brunswick	The River Watch and Flood Forecast tool provides 5-day flood forecasts and historical water level information.	Datasets	New Brunswick	https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/public_alerts/river_watch.html
Government of New Brunswick	Coastal Erosion Data displays trends of coastal erosion and shoreline displacement based on specific measurement sites.	Datasets	New Brunswick	http://www.snb.ca/geonb1/e/apps/apps-E.asp
Government of Nova Scotia	The Flood Event Database contains historical records of flood events in Nova Scotia since 1992.	Interactive map	Nova Scotia (1992‒Feb. 2015)	https://mathstat.dal.ca/~ameliay/flood/
	The DNR Coastal Flood Risk Map provides static coastal flood risk maps, and emergency coastal flooding decision-support systems for different regions of the province.	Interactive map	Nova Scotia	https://agrgims.cogs.nscc.ca/CoastalFlooding/lidar-mapping
	The Potential Impact of Drought to Private Wells gridded interactive map shows potential water shortages and drought risk.	Interactive map	Nova Scotia	https://fletcher.novascotia.ca/DNRViewer/?viewer=DroughtIndex
Nova Scotia Community College	The Applied Geomatics Research Group Coastal Storm Surge Interactive Map is a Decision Support System for flood risk from storm surges and sea-level rise.	Interactive map and data	Nova Scotia	http://agrgims.cogs.nscc.ca/CoastalFlooding/Map/
Government of Prince Edward Island	The Surface Water Quality Database provides information about sampling locations, downloadable data and visualizations.	Datasets and visualization tools	Prince Edward Island	https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/service/view-surface-water-quality
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador	The interactive Geoscience Atlas allows users to select and view layers that include coastal monitoring variables.	Datasets and mapping tools	Newfoundland and Labrador	https://gis.geosurv.gov.nl.ca/
Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association	The Coastal Community Adaptation Tool supports decision making around coastal flooding and erosion.	Reports and case studies	Atlantic Canada	https://atlanticadaptation.ca/en/content/guidance-coastal-flooding-and-erosion-adaptation
U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center	The Ice Climatology dataset contains long-term information on ice conditions over specific geographic regions.	Datasets	Arctic/Antarctic	https://nsidc.org/data/sipn/data-sets.html
Note: this list is not exhaustive and URLs may change over time.

To help address this issue and enhance collaboration around information sharing at the national level, the Canadian Centre for Climate Services (CCCS) was established by Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2018. The goal of the CCCS is to provide authoritative, relevant and timely climate change information and assistance interpreting this information. The Centre indirectly plays an important role in centralizing resources related to climate change and water resources spread across many organizations. It complements work undertaken by others, such as Canada’s Regional Adaptation Collaboratives (RACs), which produced a variety of vulnerability assessments, guidebooks and technical studies, and significantly increased awareness of climate-related issues, resulting in a number of outputs to address the water-related risks of climate change (Eyzaguirre, 2015).

Despite these efforts, there are key gaps in Canadian water information systems, and these present challenges to adaptation in the water sector, including:

Fewer weather and hydrometric monitoring stations in northern regions and watersheds (Koshida et al., 2015);
Limited data availability for groundwater, water quality, evapotranspiration, return flows, glaciers, future trends and actual water use (Bakker and Cook, 2011; Corkal et al., 2011; Sandford et al., 2011; National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2010; Stratton, 2005; Langsdale et al., 2004), ecological health (World Wildlife Fund, 2017), and water-related infrastructure (Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, 2008);
Uneven regional research on hydrological trends. Current research is focused on northern regions, British Columbia and the Prairie region, with fewer studies in Eastern Canada. Drought analysis and climatological trend research is primarily focused on the Prairie region (Mortsch et al., 2015);
Limited understanding of spatial and temporal variability in climate change impacts on water resources (Shrestha, et al., 2012);
Uncertainty associated with hydrologic modelling tools, data inputs and methodologies for generating future projections (Milner et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2015; Brown and Wilby, 2012; Poulin et al., 2011);
Little standardization, centralization and consistency in data collection, indicators and methodologies for risk assessments (Moody and Brown, 2012) and water availability studies (Koshida et al., 2015; Dunn and Bakker, 2011); and
Stakeholder uncertainty about what data exists, how it can be accessed and integrated into planning, and who is responsible for collecting and assembling data (Canadian Water Network, 2019; Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources, 2011; Telfer and Droitsch, 2011; Diaz et al., 2009).

These limitations result in uneven information system capacity to build resilient and adaptive institutions and infrastructure.

4.6.3

Water-related infrastructure

Infrastructure provides critical services for Canadians. For example, dams provide flood control, water supply, and hydroelectric production; wastewater infrastructure removes harmful nutrients and toxins from effluent to meet health and environmental standards; and pumping stations deliver water to industries, communities and households. There is also a growing understanding that natural infrastructure, such as wetlands, forests and soils, provides outcomes similar to built infrastructure at a lower cost and more efficiently (Moudrak et. al, 2018), largely resulting from reduced maintenance and life-cycle management costs.

Water-related climate change impacts constitute some of the main hazards to all infrastructure in Canada (Public Safety Canada, 2018) and can manifest as physical damage, service disruptions, and increased maintenance and operational costs (Boyle et al., 2013). Ageing infrastructure is particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts (Public Safety Canada, 2018).

Three assessments provide a general overview of water-related climate change hazards, infrastructure vulnerabilities and adaptive actions across Canada (Andrey et al., 2014; Boyle et al., 2013; Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, 2008). While extensive vulnerability assessments have been undertaken at the local and regional levels, there is much less information available at the provincial and national scales (Boyle et al., 2013). Insufficient information is the main factor limiting a systematic pan-Canadian assessment of water infrastructure (Andrey et al., 2014); however, key hazards and risks to water infrastructure are identified in the assessments listed above and are summarized in Figure 4.10.

A key tool for assessing the vulnerability of water resource infrastructure in Canada is the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Protocol (see Box 4.3).

Figure illustrates three key climate change hazards: storm surges and sea-level rise; extreme precipitation; and, drought and higher temperatures. These hazards impact infrastructure, for instance, by cutting power to water facilities, creating higher demand on water infrastructure, and creating algal blooms. Impacts on infrastructure lead to community impacts such as localized flooding, water system disruption, water contamination, and changing water availability. — Figure 4.10

Download

Share

-

Box 4.3

Assessing infrastructure vulnerability

The Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) Protocol is a five-step procedure to systematically assess engineering vulnerability and risk from current and future climate impacts; this procedure can be applied to any type of infrastructure. The five steps include 1) project definition, 2) data gathering, 3) vulnerability assessment (see Figure 4.11), 4) vulnerability indicator analysis and 5) recommendations for building in resilience.

Figure 4.11

Download

-

Figure 4.11

Flow chart illustrating step 3 of the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC) protocol. Step 3 includes a vulnerability assessment to identify the relationships between climate change and impacts to infrastructure.

Source

Adapted from Félio, 2017.

The PIEVC protocol has been applied in dozens of local water infrastructure assessments, leading to a wide range of conclusions and recommendations. For example, the City of Calgary concluded that its water supply infrastructure is generally resilient to climate change impacts (Associated Engineering, 2011), while the City of Nelson found that storm water infrastructure required additional investment to alleviate flooding concerns (see Case Story 4.7; Paré, 2014). In general, case study findings point to best practices for resilient water infrastructure design and operation, including:

good maintenance and management; older and/or poorly maintained and managed infrastructure is more at risk to climate impacts;
building redundancies into water systems (e.g., multiple intake points and delivery mechanisms);
for new infrastructure, considering climate change impacts during project design to avoid difficult and costly retrofits or facility upgrades once built; and
ensuring infrastructure-related codes, standards and related instruments reflect reliable and up-to-date information and/or factor in climate change projections.

These assessments also call attention to three major vulnerabilities in existing water infrastructure systems. Firstly, these systems usually assume that conditions of the past will apply in the future, with design and operating rules based on empirical records from the past rather than anticipated future conditions (Sauchyn et al., 2016; Mguni, 2015; Boyle et al., 2013; Hamlet, 2011; de Loë and Plummer, 2010; Minville et al., 2010). As it is not always clear what climate information was used to develop codes, standards or related instruments, developing future standards is not always as simple as updating past climate data (Andrey et al., 2014). Secondly, there is a tendency to not account for low-probability climate events that have highly adverse impacts (Sauchyn et al., 2016). Case studies highlight the importance of robust emergency planning and preparedness, as well as back-up power and communications systems, to support infrastructure design and maintenance (Félio, 2015; Nodelcorp Consulting, 2014). Thirdly, there are significant costs associated with infrastructure maintenance, redundancies, upgrades and increasingly stringent regulations (de Loë and Plummer, 2010). The most recent Canadian Infrastructure Report Cards (2019, 2016) indicate that while the majority of potable water, wastewater and storm water systems are rated “good,” reinvestment rates in these systems remain below the rates required to maintain or improve them (Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, 2019, 2016).

Requirements around design, building and operations are changing to address these vulnerabilities. For example, Infrastructure Canada introduced a “climate lens” assessment requirement for several of its funding initiatives in 2018. The assessment requires proponents to consider risk management approaches to adapt to climate change-related impacts during the lifecycle of the proposed infrastructure and potential upstream and downstream impacts (e.g., reduction of downstream flooding due to engineered wetland construction) (Infrastructure Canada, 2018).

Case Story 4.7

Climate change impacts on water and wastewater infrastructure at Akwesasne

In 2015, Engineers Canada initiated discussions with the Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation about the impacts of climate change on infrastructure in Indigenous communities. The intent was to incorporate climate considerations into First Nations asset management planning.

Engineers Canada’s PIEVC Protocol was considered the best approach to assess climate risks for infrastructure, and work progressed in the Mohawk territory of Akwesasne. Akwesasne is a community of approximately 12,300 people distributed across three districts: Kawehno:ke (Cornwall Island, Ontario), Kana:takon (Saint Regis, Quebec) and Tsi:Snaihne (Snye, Quebec). The Akwesasne territory spans portions of Ontario, Quebec and New York, and is governed by the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.

The first phase of the study (Félio, 2017) employed the PIEVC protocol to evaluate the vulnerability to climate change impacts in potable water and wastewater collection and treatment systems for Cornwall Island, Saint Regis and Snye. Risks were ranked based on occurrence probability and severity, but included special cases such as low probability‒high impact events. The team analyzed climate‒infrastructure interactions that would impact infrastructure design, functionality, serviceability and community impacts, such as social and cultural effects and emergency response.

The risks assessed differed between the locations and systems evaluated, but largely included water-related climate change impacts such as ice storms, hail, snowfall and rain events, as well as tornadoes and strong winds. Of these, the hazard‒infrastructure interactions considered to pose “high” and “extreme” risks are projected to increase in the future (by the 2050s).

The study found that the water and wastewater infrastructure of Akwesasne appears to be in good condition to withstand some increases in frequency and intensity of the climate events predicted, with the caveat that deteriorating infrastructure will present a greater risk (Félio, 2017). Recommended adaptive and risk mitigation measures include maintaining high levels of operations staff, competencies and infrastructure conditions; reviewing land-use policies to avoid building in high-risk areas of the community; and emergency planning, such as implementing a weather alert system with public outreach (Félio, 2017).

The second phase of this study led to the development of a PIEVC Protocol tailored to First Nations communities. This version of the protocol provides guidance on how to integrate traditional ecological knowledge (TEK); it is adapted to unique circumstances that impact Indigenous communities (e.g., smaller communities, remote locations, etc.) (Engineers Canada, 2018).

There is also greater awareness of the potential of nature-based solutions or natural infrastructure to reduce the water-related impacts of climate change (Stanley et al., 2019; Moudrak et al., 2018). Natural infrastructure is defined as “a strategically planned and managed network of natural lands, such as forests and wetlands, working landscapes, and other open spaces that conserves or enhances ecosystem values and functions, and that provides associated benefits to human populations” (Benedict and McMahon, 2006). This infrastructure can be fully natural (e.g., conserved natural wetland) or engineered (e.g., restored wetland with an engineered outlet), and can complement existing built infrastructure (Moudrak et al., 2018). In water resource management, natural infrastructure tends to be more flexible than built infrastructure and provides important co-benefits, such as carbon sequestration and improved water quality and ecosystem health (see Ecosystem Services chapter; Goldstein et al., 2019; Stanley et al., 2019; Moudrak et al., 2018). Widespread implementation of natural infrastructure solutions has been hindered by a lack of knowledge and expertise, and policy and regulatory processes that favour built infrastructure (ICF, 2018). However, a number of recent examples across Canada have illustrated natural infrastructure success stories for reducing the water-related impacts of climate change (see Box 4.4).

Box 4.4

Nature-based options for adaptation

Floodplain preservation, wetland restoration, flood setbacks, two-stage channels (for high and low flows), relief channels (for high flows) and adding in-stream structures and bank vegetation are all nature-based strategies that reduce the risks from riverine flooding (ICF, 2018). These solutions are effective methods of enhancing the capacity of water systems to absorb the impacts of excess water. For example, a study demonstrated that naturally occurring wetlands in Ontario reduced flood damage costs to buildings by $3.5 million at a rural site and by $51.1 million at an urban site, while another study found a restored and engineered wetland in Manitoba provided flood reduction, water quality and other benefits valued at $3.7 million (Moudrak et al., 2018). In urban centres, runoff from rainfall can contribute to urban flooding and increase contaminant loads to receiving waters. Nature-based adaptation options such as green roofs, bioswales (sloped, vegetated surfaces), bioretention ponds, rain gardens, urban trees and vegetative swales are effectively reducing the risks from storm water runoff in many sites across Canada (see Cities and Towns chapter; ICF, 2018). For example, Toronto’s Green Roof Program contributes to an estimated reduction of just over 12,000 m³ (435,000 ft³) of storm water annually, and enabled the creation of over 100 jobs related to the design, manufacturing, installation and maintenance of the infrastructure (ICF, 2018). Similarly, naturally occurring ponds in Gibsons, B.C., provide approximately $4 million of storm water storage services annually (Moudrak et al., 2018).

The vulnerability assessment process has helped water resource managers across Canada envision how climate change interacts with current systems to exacerbate existing risks or produce new ones. This process, in turn, is helping to identify adaptation actions, and ultimately guide planning and resource allocation in the face of uncertainty.

4.7

Moving forward

4.7.1

Knowledge gaps and research needs

This chapter highlights some key knowledge and information exchange gaps that present challenges for adaptive water resources management efforts in Canada. These include:

Access to data: While there is a plethora of water and climate information and research actively produced at many scales and locations across Canada, there is considerable variation between this data, with little centralization or standardization (Dunn and Bakker, 2011). This contributes to uncertainty around what data exists, and how it can be accessed and interpreted or applied (Telfer and Droitsch, 2011; Diaz et al., 2009).
Guidance for decision making: There is a critical need for translating scientific and technical knowledge into practical guidance for decision makers, managers, practitioners and stakeholders. This includes guidance for considering climate change in engineering design, codes and standards for built and natural infrastructure, and in policy and institutional mandates (IJC, 2018; de Loë, 2017; Andrey et al., 2014; Nodelcorp Consulting, 2014; Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, 2008).
Engagement for shared understanding: Stakeholder engagement is critical to advancing adaptation in the Canadian water sector. The development of strategies to build consensus or compromise around solutions between the conflicting needs and objectives of water stakeholder groups is an emerging field of practice and study in the Canadian water sector. There is a need for practical and effective methods to assist decision makers in navigating stakeholder interactions, negotiating conflicts, accounting for changing social dynamics, and reconciling trade-offs between competing water uses (Global Water Futures, 2020; Clark et al., 2016; Hurlbert and Diaz, 2013; Hamlet, 2011; Ivey et al., 2004).
Knowledge mobilization between knowledge producers and users: Effective knowledge mobilization is required to bridge the gap between knowledge generated by the research community and water organizations, and knowledge held by water practitioners and stakeholders across Canada. Knowledge mobilization is a reciprocal exchange and uptake of knowledge between organizations and individuals dedicated to making research useful to society (Research Impact Canada, 2018). Social factors play a significant role in the uptake of new knowledge, and it is important to develop strong, trusting, meaningful relationships between researchers and knowledge user communities (Crona and Parker, 2011).

Addressing the following additional research needs and knowledge gaps would help to better understand the effectiveness of adaptation efforts and advance adaptive management processes:

Monitoring and data collection: There is limited monitoring capacity, particularly in northern regions, and a need for additional observational data for groundwater, water quality, evapotranspiration, return flows, glaciers and actual water use (Koshida et al., 2015; Bakker and Cook, 2011; Corkal et al., 2011; Sandford et al., 2011; National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2010; Stratton, 2005; Langsdale et al., 2004).
Modelling, forecasting and prediction: Detailed model inter-comparison studies would provide insights about shortcomings in specific models and multi-model analyses (Milner et al., 2018; Cohen et al., 2015; Brown and Wilby, 2012; Poulin et al., 2011). Such studies would allow world-class hydrology and water quality prediction models to be deployed nationally for short-term forecasting and long-term prediction of changes to water availability and quality. Practical methods to clarify, reduce or prioritize key areas of model uncertainty need to be developed with the practitioner community and effectively mobilized in the Canadian water sector (Clark et al., 2016; Razavi and Gupta, 2016; Brown and Wilby, 2012).
Understanding of institutional barriers: Institutional barriers to adaptation are under-studied, and not always comprehensively understood, despite their recognition as a real issue by Canadian water practitioners (Global Water Futures, 2020; Straith et al., 2014). There is an on-going need to look beyond the science and technology of climate change to drive governance change that will enhance the climate resilience of Canadian water systems (Gober, 2013; de Loë and Plummer, 2010). While the importance to adaptive governance is broadly recognized, indicators of institutional resilience are rarely reflected in vulnerability tools, and there is a limited understanding of how to adequately capture and measure these concepts (Plummer et al., 2012).
Documentation of successes and failures: Evaluation of adaptive management processes is critical; however, it often lacks rigorous documentation in academic literature. Evaluation is necessary at local, regional and national scales, including monitoring of short-term and longer-term outcomes from adaptation measures. Identifying and sharing failures, while often avoided, is sometimes more useful for informing adaptation efforts and social learning.

4.8

Conclusion

Water is central to economic growth, environmental health and social stability in Canada. This chapter has shown that water systems are in the throes of rapid transformation as a result of climate change and human action. Global climate change has already affected Canada’s cold-dominated water cycle, melting ice and snow, altering the precipitation phase, and changing the nature and timing of water-related natural hazards. Future changes are uncertain, but include the following: risks of reduced water availability and more frequent drought, particularly in the southern Prairies and interior of British Columbia; extreme rainfall contributing to floods; and additional occurrences of harmful algae blooms.

There is much to be done to prepare Canada for an uncertain water future. Uncertainty is not an invitation to inaction; it does, however, change the way in which we must prepare. Canadian water institutions have historically been organized to deal with predictable future conditions where we can extrapolate a future based on the past. Climatic uncertainty has changed that. Water organizations are beginning to embrace exploratory modelling, scenario exercises and adaptive management as a way of planning under uncertainty and of adjusting plans to meet changing circumstances.

Responsibility for adaptation in the water resources sector is also spread across a complex array of governments and organizations involved in water stewardship activities. Effective coordination between these groups plays an important role in strengthening adaptation in the water resources sector, and is exemplified by transboundary water organizations in Canada. Case studies also emphasize that adaptation is a local, place-based process. While access to technical skills, resources and contextual, place-based knowledge are assets to adaptation, capacity challenges are often concentrated in rural, northern and Indigenous communities. These communities are often the most vulnerable to the water-related risks of climate change, and bear a disproportionate burden of the costs of adaptation.

Canadians experience climate change impacts in their own communities, and climate-related impacts vary significantly across Canada. Water practitioners benefit from access to high quality, locally relevant climate data to reduce vulnerabilities in systems and infrastructure, and Canadians are more likely to support adaptation efforts when they understand co-benefits and are armed with information to act decisively. One-size-fits-all national adaptation strategies are unlikely to meet the challenge of climate change or the values of Canadians across regions.

Still, adaptation efforts lag behind what will be required to meet the challenges of climatic change. They are for the most part one-off experiments at local levels rather than part of institutionalized processes for environmental management and societal change. Water-related risks have not yet reached critical urgency in the minds of Canadians to trigger support for widespread, immediate action.

4.9

References

Abbott, G. and Chapman, M. (2018). Addressing the New Normal 21st Century Disaster Management in British Columbia. Report to the Government of British Columbia. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/emergency-preparedness-response-recovery/emergency-management-bc/reports>

Abu, R., Reed, M.G. and Jardine, T.D. (2019). Using two-eyed seeing to bridge Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems and understand long-term change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 1–20. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2018.1558050>

Akamani, K. and Wilson, P.I. (2011). Toward the adaptive governance of transboundary water resources. Conservation Letters, 4, 409–416. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00188.x>

Akerlof, K., DeBono, R., Berry, P., Leiserowitz, A., Rose-Renouf, C., Clarke, K.-L., Rogaeva, A., Nisbet, M.C., Weathers, M.R. and Maibach, E.W. (2010). Public perceptions of climate change as a human health risk: Surveys of the United States, Canada and Malta. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7, 2559–2606. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7062559>

Alberta Water Council (2017). Looking Back: Evaluating Sector Improvements in Water Conservation, Efficiency and Productivity. Edmonton, Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.awchome.ca/_projectdocs/?file=d86483b3094da16b>

Alberta WaterSMART (2013). Water Reuse in Alberta: Experiences and impacts on economic growth. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://watersmartsolutions.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Water-Reuse-in-Alberta-2013-Sust-Reg-Dev.pdf#:~:text=Water%20Reuse%20in%20Alberta%3A%20Experiences%20and%20Impacts%20on,treatment%20technologies%20have%20advanced%20significantly%20over%20the%20last>

Alberta WaterSMART (2016). Climate Vulnerability and Sustainable Water Management in the South Saskatchewan River Basin: Final Report. 129 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://albertawater.com/docs-work/projects-and-research/ssrb/178-ssrb-water-project-final-report-adaptation-roadmap-for-sustainable-water-management-in-the-ssrb-january-2016/file>

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure (2012). Flood Risk and Vulnerability Analysis Project. Report submitted to Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association. Department of Environment and Conservation, Newfoundland and Labrador. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://atlanticadaptation.ca/en/islandora/object/acasa%3A446>

Andrey, J., Kertland, P. and Warren, F.J. (2014). Water and transportation infrastructure, Chapter 8 in Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation, (Eds.) F.J. Warren and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 233‒252. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/earthsciences/pdf/assess/2014/pdf/Full-Report_Eng.pdf>

Aquije, D.D. (2016). Paying for Stormwater Management: What are the Options? Report by The Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/uploads/342/imfg_perspectives_no12_stormwater_daniella_davilaaquije_apr26_2016.pdf>

Archer, L., Ford, J.D., Pearce, T., Kowal, S., Gough, W.A. and Allurut, M. (2017). Longitudinal assessment of climate vulnerability: a case study from the Canadian Arctic. Sustainability Science, 12, 15–29. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0401-5>

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E. and Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 995‒1004. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006>

Associated Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. (2018). Final Report: Improving Coastal Flood Adaptation Approaches. Prepared for the City of Surrey, 351 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.surrey.ca/files/CFAS-ICFAA-FinalReport-29032018.pdf>

Associated Engineering (2011). City of Calgary Water Supply Infrastructure: Climate Change and Vulnerability Risk Assessment. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://pievc.ca/sites/default/files/city_of_calgary_water_supply_infrastructure_report_web.pdf>

Bakaic, M., Medeiros, A.S., Peters, J.F. and Wolfe, B.B. (2017). Hydrologic monitoring tools for freshwater municipal planning in the Arctic: the case of Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25, 32913–32925. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9343-4>

Bakker, K. and Cook, C. (2011). Water governance in Canada: Innovation and fragmentation. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 27, 275–289. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2011.564969>

Bauer, A. and Steurer, R. (2014). Multi-level governance of climate change adaptation through regional partnerships in Canada and England. Geoforum, 51, 121–129. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.10.006>

Benedict, M. and McMahon, E. (2006). Green infrastructure: Linking landscapes and communities.

2nd edition. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Berkes, F. and Armitage, D. (2010). Co-management institutions, knowledge, and learning: Adapting to change in the Arctic. The Inuit and Climate Change, 34(1), 109‒131. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.7202/045407ar>

BGC Engineering Inc. (2011). Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee Assessment for NWT Highway 3. Prepared for Government of Northwest Territories, Department of Transportation Territories, 212 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://pievc.ca/sites/default/files/2gnwt_hwy_3_west_yellowknife_report_web.pdf>

Bizikova, L. and Vodicka, A. (2013). Adaptive Policy Analysis of Nova Scotia: Selected policies and programs of Nova Scotia Environment. IISD Report submitted to Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division, Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/adaptool_nova_scotia.pdf>

Bizikova, L., Swanson, D., Tyler, S., Roy, D. and Venema, H.D. (2018). Policy adaptability in practice. Policy Design and Practice, 1, 47–62. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1436376>

Bizikova, L., Tyler, S., Roy, D. and Swanson, D. (2013). Strengthening Adaptive Capacity in Four Canadian Provinces: ADAPTool analysis of selected sectoral policies. A synthesis report. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Report submitted to Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division, Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/adaptool_synthesis.pdf>

Bonsal, B.R., Peters, D.L., Seglenieks, F., Rivera, A. and Berg, A. (2019). Changes in freshwater availability across Canada, Chapter 6 in Canada’s Changing Climate Report, (Eds.) E. Bush and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 261–342. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/chapter/6-0/>

Boyle, J., Cunningham, M. and Dekens, J. (2013). Climate Change, Adaptation and Canadian Infrastructure: A review of the literature. Prepared by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 40 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/adaptation_can_infrastructure.pdf>

Brown, C. and Wilby, R.L. (2012). An alternate approach to assessing climate risks. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 93(41), 401–402 Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1029/2012EO410001>

Burch, S. (2010). Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 287–297. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.009>

Bush, E. and Lemmen, D.S. (Eds.) (2019). Canada’s Changing Climate Report. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 444 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://changingclimate.ca/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/CCCR_FULLREPORT-EN-FINAL.pdf>

Bush, E., Gillett, N., Watson, E., Fyfe, J., Vogel, F. and Swart, N. (2019). Understanding observed global climate change, Chapter 2 in Canada’s Changing Climate Report, (Eds.) E. Bush and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 24–72. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/chapter/2-0/>

Cameron, E., Mearns, R. and McGrath, J.T. (2015). Translating Climate Change: Adaptation, Resilience, and Climate Politics in Nunavut, Canada. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(2), 274–283. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.973006>

Campbell, I.D., Durant D.G., Hunter, K.L. and Hyatt, K.D. (2014). Food production, Chapter 4 in Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation, (Eds.) F.J. Warren and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 233‒252. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/earthsciences/pdf/assess/2014/pdf/Full-Report_Eng.pdf>

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2011). Selected tools to evaluate water monitoring networks for climate change adaptation. 164 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/water/climate_change/pn_1464_wmcc_tools_en.pdf>

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (2016). Summary of integrated watershed management approaches across Canada. 27 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/water/water_conservation/Summary%20of%20Integrated%20Watershed%20Management%20Approaches%20Across%20Canada%20PN%201559.pdf>

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (2008). Adapting to Climate Change Canada’s First National Engineering Vulnerability Assessment of Public Infrastructure. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://pievc.ca/sites/default/files/adapting_to_climate_change_report_final.pdf>

Canadian Dam Association (2019). “Dams in Canada”. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.cda.ca/EN/Dams_in_Canada/Dams_in_Canada/EN/Dams_In_Canada.aspx?hkey=97232972-53dc-4deb-87bd-dc023e0a0bfd>

Canadian Hydrographic Service (2019). Historical Monthly Mean Water Levels from the Coordinated network for each of the Great Lakes. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.tides.gc.ca/C&A/network_means-eng.html>

Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (2016). The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card: Informing the Future. 164 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://canadianinfrastructure.ca/downloads/Canadian_Infrastructure_Report_2016.pdf>

Canadian Infrastructure Report Card (2019). The Canadian Infrastructure Report Card: Monitoring the State of Canada’s Core Public Infrastructure. 55 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://canadianinfrastructure.ca/downloads/canadian-infrastructure-report-card-2019.pdf>

Canadian Water Network (2019). Using Better Data to Identify Climate Change-Related Infrastructure Vulnerabilities in Canadian Communities. Case Study Series. In partnership with Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://cwn-rce.ca/wp-content/uploads/Case-Studies-Using-Better-Data-to-Identify-Climate-Change-Related-Infrastructure-Vulnerabilities-in-Canadian-Communities.pdf>

Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (2015). Public Attitudes Project: Changing Public Attitudes on the Value of Canada’s Water System Infrastructure. 28 p.

Carmichael, W.W. and Boyer, G.L. (2016). Health impacts from cyanobacteria harmful algae blooms: Implications for the North American Great Lakes. Harmful Algae, 54, 194–212. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2016.02.002>

Carrière, A., Prévost, M., Zamyadi, A., Chevalier, P. and Barbeau, B. (2010). Vulnerability of Quebec drinking-water treatment plants to cyanotoxins in a climate change context. Journal of Water and Health, 8, 455–465. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2009.207>

Casello, J. and Towns, W. (2017). Urban, Chapter 9 in Climate Risks and Adaptation Practices for the Canadian transportation Sector 2016, (Eds.) K. Palko and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 264‒309. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/earthsciences/pdf/assess/2016/Chapter-9e.pdf>

Castleden, H. and Skinner, E. (2014). Whitewashing Indigenous water rights in Canada: How can we Indigenize climate change adaptation if we ignore the fundamentals?, Chapter 11 in Adaptation to Climate Change Through Water Resources Management: Capacity, Equity and Sustainability. (Eds.) D. Stucker, and E. López-Gunn. Routledge, 223‒242.

Chu, C. (2015). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Inland Aquatic Ecosystems in the Great Lakes Basin, Ontario. Ontario Ministry of National Resources and Forestry. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.climateontario.ca/MNR_Publications/CCRR-43.pdf>

Clamen, M. and Macfarlane, D. (2018). Plan 2014: The historical evolution of Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River regulation. Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 43, 416–431. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2018.1475263>

Clancy, P. (2014). Freshwater Politics in Canada. University of Toronto Press.

Clark, M.P., Wilby, R.L., Gutmann, E.D., Vano, J.A., Gangopadhyay, S., Wood, A.W. and Brekke, L.D. (2016). Characterizing uncertainty of the hydrologic impacts of climate change. Current Climate Change Reports, 2(2), 55–64. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-016-0034-x>

Clark, R., Andreichuk, I., Sauchyn, D. and McMartin, D.W. (2017). Incorporating climate change scenarios and water-balance approach to cumulative assessment models of solution potash mining in the Canadian Prairies. Climatic Change, 145, 321–334. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2099-5>

Cochran, M., Manuel, P. and Rapaport, E. (2012). Section 5: Social Vulnerability to Climate Change in the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, in Municipality of the District of Lunenburg: A Case Study in Climate Change Adaptation-Part 2. Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association (ACASA). Retrieved June 2020, from <https://atlanticadaptation.ca/en/islandora/object/acasa%3A548>

Cohen, S., Koshida, G. and Mortsch, L. (2015). Climate and water availability indicators in Canada: Challenges and a way forward. Part III – Future scenarios. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 40, 160–172. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2015.1006021>

Cohen, S., Neilsen, D., Smith, S., Neale, T., Taylor, B., Barton, M. and Tansey, J. (2006). Learning with local help: Expanding the dialogue on climate change and water management in the Okanagan Region, British Columbia, Canada. Climatic Change, 75(3), 331–358. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-6336-6>

Comeau, L. (2017). Healthy Water, Healthy People: New Brunswickers’ concerns and attitudes about fresh water and preparedness for extreme weather events. Report prepared for the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.conservationcouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/WaterSummaryReportFeb2017.pdf>

Conservation Ontario (2020). About Conservation Authorities. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://conservationontario.ca/conservation-authorities/about-conservation-authorities/>

Cook, B.R., Atkinson, M., Chalmers, H., Comins, L., Cooksley, S., Deans, N., Fazey, I., Fenemor, A., Kesby, M., Litke, S., Marshall, D. and Spray, C. (2013). Interrogating participatory catchment organisations: cases from Canada, New Zealand, Scotland and the Scottish–English Borderlands. The Geographical Journal, 179(3), 234‒247. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00492.x>

Corkal, D.R., Diaz, H. and Sauchyn, D. (2011). Changing Roles in Canadian Water Management: A Case Study of Agriculture and Water in Canada’s South Saskatchewan River Basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 27, 647–664. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.parc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Corkal_Diaz_Sauchyn-2011-Changing_roles_in_Canadian_water_management_a_case_study_of_agriculture_and_water_in_Canadas_South_Saskatchewan_River_Basin.pdf>

Cosens, B.A., Craig, R.K., Hirsch, S., Arnold, C.A.(T.), Benson, M.H., DeCaro, D.A., Garmestani, A.S., Gosnell, H., Ruhl, J. and Schlager, E. (2017). The role of law in adaptive governance. Ecology and Society, 22, 30. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08731-220130>

Crona, B.I. and Parker, J.N. (2011). Network determinants of knowledge utilization: Preliminary lessons from a boundary organization; Science Communication, 33, 448–471. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011408116>

Crossman, J., Futter, M.N., Oni, S.K., Whitehead, P.G., Jin, L., Butterfield, D., Baulch, H.M. and Dillon, P.J. (2013). Impacts of climate change on hydrology and water quality: Future proofing management strategies in the Lake Simcoe watershed, Canada. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 39, 19–32. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2012.11.003>

Dale, A., Robinson, J., King, L., Burch, S., Newell, R., Shaw, A. and Jost, F. (2019). Meeting the climate change challenge: local government climate action in British Columbia, Canada. Climate Policy, 1–15. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1651244>

Daniell, K.A., Coombes, P.J. and White, I. (2014). Politics of innovation in multi-level water governance systems. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 2415–2435. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.08.058>

de Loë, R. (2009). Sharing the Waters of the Red River Basin: A Review of Options for Transboundary Water Governance. Prepared for International Red Rivers Board, International Joint Commission. Rob de Loë Consulting Services, Guelph, Ontario. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://legacyfiles.ijc.org/publications/Sharing%20the%20Waters%20of%20the%20Red%20River%20Basin.pdf>

de Loë, R. (2017). Coordinating water policies: necessary, but not sufficient, in Water Policy and Governance in Canada, (Eds.) S. Renzetti, D. Dupont. Global Issues in Water Policy Series, 17, 231‒248. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.

de Loë, R. and Plummer, R. (2010). Climate change, adaptive capacity, and governance for drinking water in Canada, in Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance, (Eds.) D. Armitage and R. Plummer. Springer Series on Environmental Management, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

de Loë, R., Kreutzwisera, R. and Morarub, L. (2001). Adaptation options for the near term: climate change and the Canadian water sector. Global Environmental Change, 11, 231–245. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00053-4>

De Stefano, L., Duncan, J., Dinar, S., Stahl, K., Strzepek, K.M. and Wolf, A.T. (2012). Climate change and the institutional resilience of international river basins. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 193‒209. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311427416>

Derksen, C., Burgess, D., Duguay, C., Howell, S., Mudryk, L., Smith, S., Thackeray, C. and Kirchmeier-Young, M. (2019). Changes in snow, ice, and permafrost across Canada, Chapter 5 in Canada’s Changing Climate Report, (Eds.) E. Bush and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 194–260. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/chapter/5-0/>

Di Baldassarre, G., Viglione, A., Carr, G., Kuil, L., Yan, K., Brandimarte, L. and Blöschl, G. (2015). Debates—Perspectives on socio-hydrology: Capturing feedbacks between physical and social processes. Water Resources Research, 51, 4770–4781. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016416>

Diaz, H., Hurlbert, M., Warren, J. and Corkal, D.R. (2009). Unit 1E Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change Project, in Saskatchewan Water Governance Assessment Final Report. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.parc.ca/mcri/pdfs/papers/gov01.pdf>

Döll, P., Jiménez-Cisneros, B., Oki, T., Arnell, N.W., Benito, G., Cogley, J.G., Jiang, T., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Mwakalila, S. and Nishijima, A. (2015). Integrating risks of climate change into water management. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60, 4–13. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.967250>

Dunn, G. and Bakker, K. (2011). Fresh water-related indicators in Canada: an inventory and analysis. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 36(2), 135‒148. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3602815>

Ecology North (2017). Northwest Territories Climate Change Adaptation Needs Assessments.

El-Khoury, A., Seidou, O., Lapen, D.R., Que, Z., Mohammadian, M., Sunohara, M. and Bahram, D. (2015). Combined impacts of future climate and land use changes on discharge, nitrogen and phosphorus loads for a Canadian river basin. Journal of Environmental Management, 151, 76–86. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.012>

Engineers Canada (n.d.). About | Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee (PIEVC). Retrieved MONTH 2020, from <https://pievc.ca/>

Engineers Canada (2018). Combining traditional knowledge with the PIEVC framework to strengthen climate resilient infrastructure in First Nations communities. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://engineerscanada.ca/news-and-events/news/combining-traditional-knowledge-with-the-pievc-framework-to-strengthen-climate>

Environment and Climate Change Canada (2018). Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative: Phase II Final Report. Retrieved February 2021, from <http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/eccc/En4-137-3-2019-eng.pdf>

EPCOR (2019). FAQs. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.epcor.com/products-services/drainage/rates-terms-and-conditions/Pages/faqs.aspx>

Eyzaguirre, J. (2015). The Impact of Canada’s Regional Adaptation Collaboratives on Climate Adaptation. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd. for Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/environment/pdf/RAC_Project_Impact_Report-eng.pdf>

Failing, L., Gregory, R. and Higgins, P. (2013). Science, Uncertainty, and Values in Ecological Restoration: A Case Study in Structured Decision-Making and Adaptive Management. Restoration Ecology, 21, 422–430. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00919.x>

Félio, G. (2015). Tools to evaluate the vulnerability and adaptation of infrastructure to climate change. Proceedings, Annual Conference – Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, 2, 742–751. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84977083808&partnerID=40&md5=87be43609bbdb474d764b0e528e4248d>

Félio, G. (2017). Climate Change Impacts on Water and Wastewater Infrastructure at Akwesasne. Prepared for Ontario First Nations Technical Services Corporation (OFNTSC). Retrieved June 2020, from <https://pievc.ca/sites/default/files/climate-change-impacts-water-wastewater-akwesasne-05-18-e.pdf>

Feltmate, B. and Moudrak, M. (2015). Preparedness of Fifteen Canadian Cities to Limit Flood Damage. Report prepared for the Co-operators. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.cooperators.ca/en/~/media/Cooperators%20Media/Section%20Media/AboutUs/Sustainability/Flood%20Paper_Preparedness%20of%20Cities_FINAL_ENG_21May2015.pdf>

Ferguson, G. and Beebe, C. (2012). Vulnerability of Nova Scotia’s Coastal Groundwater Supplies to Climate Change. Atlantic Climate Adaptation Solutions Association (ACASA). Retrieved June 2020, from <https://atlanticadaptation.ca/en/islandora/object/acasa%3A572>

Fletcher, A.J. and Knuttila, E. (2018). Gendering change, in Vulnerability and Adaptation to Drought: The Canadian Prairies and South America, (Eds) H. Diaz, M. Hurlbert, and J. Warren. University of Calgary Press, 159–178.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 15, 441–473. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511>

Ford, J.D. and King, D. (2015). A framework for examining adaptation readiness. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 20, 505–526. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9505-8>

Ford, J.D., and Pearce, T. (2010). What we know, do not know, and need to know about climate change vulnerability in the western Canadian Arctic: A systematic literature review. Environmental Research Letters, 5. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014008>

Ford, J.D., McDowell, G. and Pearce, T. (2015). The adaptation challenge in the Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1046–1053. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2723>

Ford, J.D., Couture, N., Bell, T. and Clark, D.G. (2017). Climate change and Canada’s north coast: research trends, progress, and future directions. Environmental Reviews, 26(1), 82–92. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0027>

Garrick, D.E. (2017). Water Security and Adaptation to Climate Extremes in Transboundary Rivers of North America, in Water Policy and Governance in Canada, (Eds.) S. Renzetti, D. Dupont. Global Issues in Water Policy Series, 17, 231‒248. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.

Global Water Futures (2020). Interviews with Canadian Water Experts. Prepared by Global Institute of Water Security. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Gober, P. (2013). Getting Outside the Water Box: The Need for New Approaches to Water Planning and Policy. Water Resources Management, 27, 955–957. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0222-y>

Gober, P. (2018). Building resilience for uncertain water futures. Palgrave Macmillan, Springer Nature, 213 p.

Goldstein, A., Turner, W.R., Gladstone, J. and Hole, D.G. (2019). The private sector’s climate change risk and adaptation blind spots. Nature Climate Change, 9, 18–25. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0340-5>

Gooré Bi, E., Monette, F., Gachon, P., Gaspéri, J. and Perrodin, Y. (2015). Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the impact of climate change on a combined sewer overflow and its receiving water body. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(15), 11905–11921. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4411-0>

Goulding, H. (2011). Yukon Water: An Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerabilities. Prepared by Government of Yukon, 98 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://open.yukon.ca/data/sites/default/files/yukonwater_climatechange_report_0.pdf>

Government of Alberta (2018). Bow River TransAlta Agreement. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/d0ee8794-b79b-4bd6-b50a-210c9af60104/resource/fa28185b-1ca8-4fa5-9ada-371de208f582/download/aep-flood-mitigation-bow-river-transalta-fact-sheet.pdf>

Government of Canada (2020a). Ending long-term drinking water advisories. Indigenous Services Canada. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1506514143353/1533317130660>

Government of Canada (2020b). Long-term advisories affecting water systems not financially supported by the Government of Canada South of 60. Indigenous Services Canada. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1516134315897/1533663683531>

Government of Canada (2013). Flood Damage Reduction Program. Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Government of Canada and Government of United States of America (2012). Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: Protocol amending the agreement between Canada and the United States of America on Great Lakes Water Quality, 1978, as amended on October 16, 1983, and on November 18, 1987, signed September 12, 2012. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1094_Canada-USA-GLWQA-_e.pdf>

Government of New Brunswick (2019). Historic Water Levels as of 2019. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/pa-ap/River_Watch/pdf/HistoricWaterLevels.pdf>

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (2012). Logy Bay – Middle Cove – Outer Cove Case Study. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment by Policy and Planning Division of Department of Environment and Conservation. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://atlanticadaptation.ca/en/islandora/object/acasa%3A542>

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2019). Great Lakes Water Levels. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/wlevels/>

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Committee (2018). Summary of 2017 Great Lakes Basin Conditions and Water Level Impacts to Support Ongoing Regulation Plan Evaluation. Prepared for the International Joint Commission. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://ijc.org/en/adaptive-management-study-supports-great-lakes-st-lawrence-river-water-outflow-regulation-plans>

Gronewold, A.D., Bruxer, J.,Durnford, D., Smith, J.P., Clites, A.H., Seglenieks, F., Qian, S.S., Hunter, T.S. and Fortin, V. (2016). Hydrological drivers of record-setting water level rise on Earth’s largest lake system. Water Resources Research, 52, 4026–4042. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR018209>

Gronewold, A.D. and Rood, R.B. (2019). Climate Change Sends Great Lakes Water Levels Seesawing. The Conversation US, June 8, 2019. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-sends-great-lakes-water-levels-seesawing/>

Groulx, M., Lewis, J., Lemieux, C. and Dawson, J. (2014). Place-based climate change adaptation: A critical case study of climate change messaging and collective action in Churchill, Manitoba. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 136–147. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.002>

Groves, D.G. and Lempert, R.J. (2007). A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 17, 73–85. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.006>

Gupta, J., Termeer, C.J.A.M., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S., van den Brink, M., Jong, P., Nooteboom, S. and Bergsma, E., (2010). The adaptive capacity wheel: A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(6). Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.05.006>

Guyadeen, D., Thistlethwaite, J. and Henstra, D. (2018). Evaluating the quality of municipal climate change plans in Canada. Climatic Change, 152, 121‒143. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2312-1>

Hall, J.W., Grey, D., Garrick, D., Fung, F., Brown, C., Dadson, S.J. and Sadoff, C.W. (2014). Coping with the curse of variability: Adaptation pathways to water security. Science, 346(6208), 429‒430. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/201410_Hall_Freshwater.pdf>

Hamlet, A.F. (2011). Assessing water resources adaptive capacity to climate change impacts in the Pacific Northwest Region of North America. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15, 1427–1443. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1427-2011>

Heinmiller, B.T. (2017). The Politics of Water Policy Development in Canada, in Water Policy and Governance in Canada, (Eds.) S. Renzetti, D. Dupont. Global Issues in Water Policy Series, 17, 215‒229. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42806-2>

Henrich, N., Holmes, B. and Prystajecky, N. (2015). Looking upstream: Findings from focus groups on public perceptions of source water quality in British Columbia, Canada. PLoS ONE, 10, 1–16. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141533>

Henstra, D., Minano, A. and Thistlethwaite, J. (2019a). Communicating disaster risk? An evaluation of the availability and quality of flood maps. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 19, 313–323. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-313-2019>

Henstra, D., Thistlethwaite, J., Brown, C. and Scott, D. (2019b). Flood risk management and shared responsibility: Exploring Canadian public attitudes and expectations. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 12, 1–10. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12346>

Hill, C., Furlong, K., Bakker, K. and Cohen, A. (2009). Harmonization Versus Subsidiarity in Water Governance: A Review of Water Governance and Legislation in the Canadian Provinces and Territories. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 33(4), 315–332. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3304315>

Hurlbert, M.A. (2018). Adaptive Governance (Management, Co-management and Anticipatory), in Adaptive Governance of Disaster: Drought and Flood in Rural Areas, in the Water Governance – Concepts, Methods, and Practice book series (WGCMP), 21‒48. Springer, Cham, Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57801-9_2>

Hurlbert, M.A. and Diaz, H. (2013). Water Governance in Chile and Canada. Ecology and Society, 18. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06148-180461>

Hurlbert, M., Andrews, E., Tesfamariam, Y. and Warren, J. (2015). Governing Water, Deliberative Institutions and Adaptation. Report for Water Governance and Climate Change: the engagement of civil society project. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.parc.ca/vacea/assets/PDF/reports/local%20water%20governance%20final%20report.pdf>

Hurlbert, M., Corkal, D. and Diaz, H. (2010). Government Institutions and Water Policy, in The New Normal: The Canadian Prairies in a Changing Climate, (Eds.) D. Sauchyn, H. Diaz, and S. Kulshreshtha. Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, Regina, Saskatoon, 239–245.

ICF (2018). Best practices and resources on climate resilient natural infrastructure. Prepared for Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 60 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/climate_change/Natural_Infrastructure_Report_EN.pdf>

IJC [International Joint Commission] (2015). A Real-Time Flood Forecasting and Flood Inundation Mapping System for the Lake Champlain-Richelieu River Watershed. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://legacyfiles.ijc.org/publications/Lake-Champlain-IJC-Report-to-Govts-Dec-2015-NEW.pdf>

IJC [International Joint Commission] (2017). First Triennial Assessment of Progress on Great Lakes Water Quality. Prepared by the International Joint Commission Pursuant to Article 7 (1) (k) of the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement November 28, 2017. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.ijc.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/TAP.pdf>

IJC [International Joint Commission] (2018). A Climate Change Guidance Framework for IJC Boards. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://ijc.org/en/what/climate/framework>

Infrastructure Canada (2018). Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund – Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/dmaf-faac/faq-eng.html>

Insurance Bureau of Canada (2017). “Spring flooding in Ontario and Quebec caused more than $223 million in insured damage.” Retrieved February 2021, from <http://www.ibc.ca/on/resources/media-centre/media-releases/spring-flooding-in-ontario-and-quebec-caused-more-than-223-million-in-insured-damage>

Insurance Bureau of Canada (2019a). “Eastern Canada Spring Flooding Caused Close to $208 million in Insured Damage.” Retrieved February 2021, from <http://www.ibc.ca/on/resources/media-centre/media-releases/eastern-canada-spring-flooding-caused-close-to-208-million-in-insured-damage>

Insurance Bureau of Canada (2019b). 2019 Facts of the Property and Casualty Insurance Industry in Canada, 74 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.ibc.ca/on/resources/industry-resources/insurance-fact-book>

International Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Adaptive Management Task Team (2013). Building Collaboration Across the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River System: An Adaptive Management Plan for Addressing Extreme Water Levels. Report to the International Joint Commission, May 30, 2013. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://legacyfiles.ijc.org/publications/FinalReport_AdaptiveManagementPlan_20130530.pdf>

International Institute for Sustainable Development (2016). Large Area Planning in the Nelson-Churchill River Basin (NCRB): Laying a foundation in northern Manitoba. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/large-area-planning-nelson-churchill-river-basin-full-report.pdf>

International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board (2006). Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows. Final Report by the International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Study Board to the International Joint Commission. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.losl.org/PDF/report-main-e.pdf>

International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Board (2018). Observed Conditions and Regulation Outflows in 2017. Report to the International Joint Commission, May 25, 2018. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://ijc.org/en/loslrb/observed-conditions-regulated-outflows-2017>

International Upper Great Lakes Study Board (2009). Impacts on Upper Great Lakes Water Levels: St. Clair River. Prepared for the International Joint Commission, 244 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://legacyfiles.ijc.org/publications/IUGLS%20St%20Clair%20Report%20Summary.pdf>

International Upper Great Lakes Study Board (2012). Lake Superior Regulation: Addressing Uncertainty in Upper Great Lakes Water Levels. Prepared for the International Joint Commission, 176 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2012/ijc/E95-2-15-2012-eng.pdf>

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2019). National Inuit Climate Change Strategy. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ITK_Climate-Change-Strategy_English_lowres.pdf>

IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2014). Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability – Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects (Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), (Eds.) C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York, USA, 1132 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf>

Islam, S. ul, Déry, S.J. and Werner, A.T. (2017). Future climate change impacts on snow and water resources of the Fraser River Basin, British Columbia. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 18, 473–496. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-16-0012.1>

Ivey, J., Smithers, L.J., de Loë, R. and Kreutzwiser, R.D. (2004). Community capacity for adaptation to climate-induced water shortages: Linking institutional complexity and local actors. Environmental Management, 33, 36–47. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0014-5>

Jalliffier-Verne, I., Leconte, R., Huaringa-Alvarez, U., Madoux-Humery, A.-S., Galarneau, M., Servais, P. and Dorner, S. (2015). Impacts of global change on the concentrations and dilution of combined sewer overflows in a drinking water source. The Science of the Total Environment, 508, 462–476. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.059>

Jalliffier-Verne, I., Leconte, R., Huaringa, U., Heniche, M., Madoux-Humery, A.-S., Autixier, L., Galarneau, M., Servais, P., Prevost, M. and Dorner, S. (2017). Modelling the impacts of global change on concentrations of Escherichia coli in an urban river. Advances in Water Resources, 108, 450–460. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.10.001>

Johns, C.M. (2017). The Great Lakes, Water Quality and Water Policy in Canada, in Water Policy and Governance in Canada, (Eds.) S. Renzetti and D. Dupont. Global Issues in Water Policy Series, 17, 13‒28. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.

Jones-Bitton, A., Gustafson, D.L., Butt, K. and Majowicz, S.E. (2016). Does the public receive and adhere to boil water advisory recommendations? A cross-sectional study in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. BMC Public Health, 16(14). Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2688-z>

Jost, G. and Weber, F. (2013). Potential Impacts of Climate Change on BC Hydro-Managed Water Resources. Prepared by BC Hydro, 1–28. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/environment-sustainability/environmental-reports/potential-impacts-climate-change-on-bchydro-managed-water-resources.pdf>

Kirchmeier-Young, M.C. and Zhang, X. (2020). Human influence has intensified extreme precipitation in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 117(24), 13308–13313. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921628117>

KGS Group (2016). Assiniboine River and Lake Manitoba Basins Flood Mitigation Study. Report for Manitoba Infrastructure. Government of Manitoba. Retrieved August 2018, from <https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/wms/wm/study.html>

Koshida, G., Cohen, S. and Mortsch, L. (2015). Climate and water availability indicators in Canada: Challenges and a way forward. Part I – Indicators. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 40, 133–145. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2015.1006023>

Kovacs, P. and Thistlethwaite, J. (2014). Industry, Chapter 5 in Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation, (Eds.) F.J. Warren and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.233‒252. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/earthsciences/pdf/assess/2014/pdf/Full-Report_Eng.pdf>

Kulshreshtha, S., Wheaton, E. and Wittrock, V. (2016). The Impacts of the 2001-2 Drought in Rural Alberta and Saskatchewan, and Canada, Chapter 4 in Vulnerability and Adaptation to Drought: The Canadian Prairies and South America, (Eds.) H. Diaz, M. Hurlbert, and J. Warren. University of Calgary Press, Calgary, 79‒107. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/51490/Vulnerability_and_adaptation_to_drought_2016_part%203.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y>

Kwakkel, J.H., Walker, W.E. and Haasnoot, M. (2016). Coping with the wickedness of public policy problems: Approaches for decision making under deep uncertainty. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(3). Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000626>

Lachapelle, E., Borick, C.P. and Rabe, B.G. (2014). Public Opinion on Climate Change and Support for Various Policy Instruments in Canada and the US: Findings from a Comparative 2013 Poll. Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy, 11. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2652429>

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (2013). A Local Perspective on Climate Change. Lake Simcoe Science Newsletter, 5. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/newsletter/science-newsletter-vol5.pdf>

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (2016). “Our Watershed” | Lake Simcoe Watershed. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.lsrca.on.ca/our-watershed>

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (2017). Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Load: Update 2012/13-2014/15. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/reports/Phosphorus_Load_Report.pdf>

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (2019). Phosphorus offsetting policy. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.lsrca.on.ca/Shared%20Documents/Phosphorus_Offsetting_Policy.pdf>

Latta, A. (2018). Indigenous Rights and Multilevel Governance: Learning From the Northwest Territories Water Stewardship Strategy. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 9. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2018.9.2.4>

Land Trust Alliance (2019). Conservation in a Changing Climate – Adaptive Management. <https://climatechange.lta.org/get-started/adapt/adaptive-management/>

Langsdale, S., Cohen, S., Welbourn, R. and Tansey, J. (2004). Dialogue on Adaptation to Climate Change in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia, Canada. Critical Transitions in Water and Environmental Resource Management, 1–9. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1061/40737(2004)154>

Lee, K. (1999). Appraising Adaptive Management- Ecology and Society. Ecology and Society, 3, 1–16. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00131-030203>

Lemieux, C.J., Gray, P.A., Douglas, A.G., Nielsen, G. and Pearson, D. (2014). From science to policy: The making of a watershed-scale climate change adaptation strategy. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 123–137. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.004>

Lemmen, D.S., Johnston, M., Ste-Marie, C. and Pearce, T. (2014). Natural Resources, Chapter 3 in Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation, (Eds.) F.J. Warren and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 65‒98. Retrieved June 2020, form <https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/earthsciences/pdf/assess/2014/pdf/Full-Report_Eng.pdf>

Lempert, R.J. and Collins, M.T. (2007). Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches; Risk Analysis: an Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 27, 1009–1026. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00940.x>

Lempert, R.J. and Groves, D.G. (2010). Identifying and evaluating robust adaptive policy responses to climate change for water management agencies in the American west. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7(6), 960‒974. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.04.007>

Lempert, R., Popper, S.W. and Bankes, S. (2003). Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis. RAND, Santa Monica, California, 187 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1626.pdf>

Lesnikowski, A., Ford, J., Biesbroek, R., Berrang-Ford, L., Maillet, M., Araos, M. and Austin, S.E. (2017). What does the Paris Agreement mean for adaptation? Climate Policy, 17, 825–831. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1248889>

Lieske, D.J., Wade, T. and Roness, L.A. (2014). Climate change awareness and strategies for communicating the risk of coastal flooding: A Canadian Maritime case example. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 140, 83–94. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.04.017>

Lindsay, B. (2018). “The future looks grim after 2 years of devastating B.C. wildfires.” CBC News. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/the-future-looks-grim-after-2-years-of-devastating-b-c-wildfires-1.4801181>

Liu, J., Baulch, H.M., Macrae, M.L., Wilson, H.F., Elliott, J.A., Bergström, L. and Vadas, P.A. (2019). Agricultural Water Quality in Cold Climates: Processes, Drivers, Management Options, and Research Needs. Journal of Environmental Quality, 48, 792–802. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2019.05.0220>

Lo, A.Y. (2013). The role of social norms in climate adaptation: Mediating risk perception and flood insurance purchase. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1249–1257. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.019>

MMM Group (2014). National Floodplain Mapping Assessment – Final Report. Retrieved October 2020, from <https://www.slideshare.net/glennmcgillivray/national-floodplain-mapping-assessment>

MacLean, C. (2017). “5-year fight removes less than 1% of phosphorus from Lake Winnipeg Basin.” CBC News. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/lake-winnipeg-phosphorus-algae-blooms-1.4293366>

Magzul, L. and Rojas, A. (2006). Report on the Blood Tribe (Kainai Nation): community vulnerabilities. Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change (IACC) Project report. IACC, La Sarena, Chile. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.parc.ca/mcri/pdfs/papers/iacc051.pdf>

Maier, H. R., Guillaume, J.H.A., van Delden, H., Riddell, G.A., Haasnoot, M. and Kwakkel, J.H. (2016). An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: How do they fit together? Environmental Modelling & Software, 81, 154–164. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.03.014>

Mailhot, E., Music, B., Nadeau, D.F., Frigon, A. and Turcotte, R. (2019). Assessment of the Laurentian Great Lakes’ hydrological conditions in a changing climate. Climatic Change, 157, 243–259. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02530-6>

Manitoba Hydropower (n.d.). The Manitoba Hydro system watershed. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.manitobahydropower.com/who-we-are/>

Mantyka-Pringle, C.S., Jardine, T.D., Bradford, L., Bharadwaj, L., Kythreotis, A.P., Fresque-Baxter, J. and Lindenschmidt, K.-E. (2017). Bridging science and traditional knowledge to assess cumulative impacts of stressors on ecosystem health. Environment International, 102, 125–137. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.02.008>

McCullough, G.K., Page, S.J., Hesslein, R.H., Stainton, M.P., Kling, H.J., Salki, A.G. and Barber, D.G. (2012). Hydrological forcing of a recent trophic surge in Lake Winnipeg. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 38, 95–105. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2011.12.012>

McKay, J. (2019). “City of Iqaluit declares 2nd water emergency in 2 years.” CBC News. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/lake-geraldine-city-iqaluit-water-emergency-1.5235383>

McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.531>

McMillan, T., Causley, D., Hanna, K., Lulham, N., Seasons, M. and Boddy, S. (2019). Local Adaptation in Canada, Survey Report. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, University of British Columbia, and the University of Waterloo. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://ok-cear.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2019/06/Local-Adaptation-in-Canada-Full-web.-1.pdf>

McNeil, D. (2019). An Independent Review of the 2019 Flood Events in Ontario. A report to the Hon. John Yakabuski, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Retrieved April 2021, from <https://files.ontario.ca/mnrf-english-ontario-special-advisor-on-flooding-report-2019-11-25.pdf>

Mguni, V. (2015). Integrated Risk Management for Municipal Water Systems in Canada through Inter-jursidctional ecosystem management using conservation authorities as a model. White paper prepared for the Canadian Water Network. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://cvc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Appendix-K-Integrated-Risk-Management-for-Municiplal-Water-Systems-in-Canada-through-inter-jurisdictional-ecosystem-management.pdf>

Mildenberger, M., Howe, P. Lachapelle, E., Stokes, L., Marlon, J. and Gravelle, T. (2016). The distribution of climate change public opinion in Canada. PLoS ONE, 11, e0159774. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159774>

Miller, L. (2015). Updating Infrastructure in Canada: An examination of needs and investments. Report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Retrieved June 2020, form <http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/parl/xc27-1/XC27-1-1-412-9-eng.pdf>

Milly, P.C.D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R.M., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lettenmaier, D.P. and Stouffer, R.J. (2008). Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science, 319, 573‒574. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151915>

Milner, G., Delaney, F., Baginski, B., Baus, N., Hall, A., Jackson, A. and Witt, J. (2018). Prioritizing climate science knowledge gaps in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Prepared jointly by the Ontario Climate Consortium and the Centre for Environment and Sustainability to advise Annex 9 – Climate Change Impacts under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://climateconnections.ca/app/uploads/2019/02/Prioritizing-Climate-Science-Knowledge-Gaps-in-the-Great-Lakes-Basin3.pdf>

Minville, M., Krau, S., Brissette, F. and Leconte, R. (2010). Behaviour and performance of a water resource system in Québec (Canada) under adapted operating policies in a climate change context. Water Resources Management, 24, 1333–1352. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9500-8>

Mitchell, B., Priddle, C., Shrubsole, D., Veale, B. and Walters, D. (2014). Integrated water resource management: lessons from conservation authorities in Ontario, Canada. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3), 460–474. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2013.876328>

Mitchell, B. (2017). The Hydrological and Policy Contexts for Water in Canada, in Water Policy and Governance in Canada, (Eds.) S. Renzetti and D. Dupont. Global Issues in Water Policy Series, 17, 13‒28. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.

Moncrieff-Gould, G., Quigley, K. and Burns, C. (2018). Strengthening the resilience of the Canadian water sector: Final report. MacEachen Institute for Public Policy and Governance. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://rdrmug.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/REPORT-Stregthening-the-Resilience-of-the-Canadian-Water-Sector.pdf>

Moody, P. and Brown, C. (2012). Modeling stakeholder-defined climate risk on the Upper Great Lakes. Water Resources Research, 48. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012497>

Moore, M.-L., von der Porten, S., Plummer, R., Brandes, O. and Baird, J. (2014). Water policy reform and innovation: A systematic review. Environmental Science & Policy, 38, 263–271. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.007>

Morris, M. and de Loë, R. (2016). Cooperative and adaptive transboundary water governance in Canada’s Mackenzie River Basin: status and prospects. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 26. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08301-210126>

Morrison, A., Noble, B.F. and Westbrook, C.J. (2018). Flood risk management in the Canadian Prairie provinces: Defaulting towards flood resistance and recovery versus resilience. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 43(11), 33‒46. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2018.1428501>

Mortsch, L., Cohen, S. and Koshida, G. (2015). Climate and water availability indicators in Canada: Challenges and a way forward. Part II – Historic trends. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 40, 146–159. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2015.1006024>

Mortsch, L., Ingram, I., Hebb, A. and Doka, S. (Eds.) (2006). Great Lakes Coastal Wetland Communities: Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Response to adaptation strategies. Final report submitted to the Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program, Natural Resources Canada. Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://glslcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Great_Lakes_Coastal_Wetland_Communities_-_Vulnerabilities_to_Climate_Change_and_Response_to_Adaptation_Strategies_2006_1.pdf>

Moudrak, N., Feltmate, B., Venema, H. and Osman, H. (2018). Combating Canada’s Rising Flood Costs: Natural infrastructure is an underutilized option. Prepared for Insurance Bureau of Canada by Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation. University of Waterloo. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://assets.ibc.ca/Documents/Resources/IBC-Natural-Infrastructure-Report-2018.pdf>

Murphy, D.D. and Weiland, P. (2014). Science and structured decision making: Fulfilling the promise of adaptive management for imperiled species. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 4. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-014-0165-0>

Music, B., Frigon, A., Lofgren, B., Turcotte, R. and Cyr, J.-F. (2015). Present and future Laurentian Great Lakes hydroclimatic conditions as simulated by regional climate models with an emphasis on Lake Michigan-Huron. Climatic Change, 130, 603–618. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1348-8>

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (2010). Changing Currents: Water Sustainability and the Future of Canada’s Natural Resource Sectors, Ottawa. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://nrt-trn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/changing-currents-water-report-eng.pdf>

Natural Resources Canada (2018). Federal Flood Mapping Framework. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.871554/publication.html?wbdisable=true>

Natural Resources Canada and Public Safety Canada (2018). Case studies on climate change in floodplain mapping, volume 1, in Government of Canada, Federal Floodplain Mapping Guidelines Series 91 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.4095/306436>

Nesbitt, L. (2010). Assessment of the Vulnerability of Tsiigehtchic’s Water and Wastewater Systems to Climate Change Impacts. Prepared by Ecology North, 25 p.

Nodelcorp Consulting (2014). Review and Analysis of Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments of Canadian Water Management and Drainage Infrastructure. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.th.gov.bc.ca/climate_action/documents/hwy_Risk_Assessments_from_Climate_Changes_Review.pdf>

Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd. (2014). City of Vancouver Coastal Flood Risk Assessment. Prepared for the City of Vancouver, 117 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://vancouver.ca/files/cov/CFRA-Phase-1-Final_Report.pdf>

Notaro, M., Bennington, V. and Lofgren, B. (2015). Dynamical Downscaling–Based Projections of Great Lakes Water Levels. Journal of Climate, 28, 9721–9745. Retrieved JUNE 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00847.1>

Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (2016). Estimate of the average annual cost for disaster financial assistance arrangements due to weather events. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2016/DFAA/DFAA_EN.pdf>

Okanagan River Basin Board (2010). From Rain to Resource: Managing Stormwater in a Changing Climate. A Report on the workshop and trade show October 28-29, 2010. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.obwb.ca/fileadmin/docs/rain_to_resource/Rain_to_Resource_2010_Report.pdf>

Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (2011). Watershed Adaptation in Ontario: Conservation Authority Perspectives Final Report. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.climateontario.ca/doc/workshop/2011FebMarch/FinalReport/Watershed%20Adaptation%20in%20Ontario%20-%20Conservation%20Authority%20Perspectives%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf>

Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (2012). A Climate Adaptation Strategy for the Lake Simcoe Watershed: The planning process. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.climateontario.ca/doc/casestudies/LakeSimcoeClimateChangeAdaptationStrategy-CaseStudy.pdf>

O’Neill, B.H. and Burn, C.R. (2017). Impacts of variations in snow cover on permafrost stability, including simulated snow management, Dempster Highway, Peel Plateau, Northwest Territories. NRC Research Press. Arctic Science, 3(2), 150–178. Retrieved March 2021, from <https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2016-0036>

Orihel, D.M., Baulch, H.M., Casson, N.J., North, R.L., Parsons, C.T., Seckar, D.C.M. and Venkiteswaran, J.J. (2017). Internal phosphorus loading in Canadian fresh waters: a critical review and data analysis. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 74(12), 2005–2029. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0500>

Ormiston, S. and Shelton, M. (2019). “How climate change is thawing the ‘glue that holds the northern landscape together.” CBC News. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/the-national-permafrost-thaw-inuvik-tuktoyaktuk-1.5179842>

Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board (2019). Integrated Management of the Principal Reservoirs of the Ottawa River Basin. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://ottawariver.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2018_ORRPB_CPRRO_Reservoir.pdf>

Oulahen, G., Klein, Y., Mortsch, L., O’Connell, E. and Harford, D. (2018). Barriers and Drivers of Planning for Climate Change Adaptation across Three Levels of Government in Canada. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(3), 405–421. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1481993>

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2008). Requirements for Adaptive Water Management, in Adaptive and Integrated Water Management, (Eds.) C. Pahl-Wostl, P. Kabat and J. Möltgen. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Panel on Adaptive Management for Resource Stewardship (2004). Adaptive Management for Water Resource Project planning. National Research Council. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.17226/10972>

Paré, E. (2014). City of Nelson Stormwater Infrastructure Assessment. Prepared by Focus Corporation for City of Nelson, 44 p.

Paterson, A.M., Rühland, K.M., Anstey, C.V. and Smol, J.P. (2017). Climate as a driver of increasing algal production in Lake of the Woods, Ontario, Canada. Lake and Reservoir Management, 33(4), 403–414. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2017.1379574>

Patino, L. (2010). Understanding Climate Change Adaptation and Adaptive Capacity: Synthesis Report. PRI Project Sustainable Development. Natural Resources Canada, Government of Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/376882/publication.html>

Perdeaux, S., Nunn, J.A. and Delaney, F. (2018). Approaches for Conducting Vulnerability Assessments in the Great Lakes Basin: A Review of the Literature. Report submitted to Annex 9 (Climate Change Impacts) of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/VAReport-Final.pdf>

Phillips, D. (2017). Canada’s top ten weather stories of 2013: Alberta’s Flood of Floods. Environment and Climate Change Canada. Retrieved February 2020, from <https://www.ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=5BA5EAFC-1&offset=2&toc=hide>

Pidgeon, N. (2012). Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and international perspectives and policy. Climate Policy,12, S85–S106. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2012.702982>

Plummer, R., de Loë, R. and Armitage, D. (2012). A systematic review of water vulnerability assessment tools. Water Resources Management, 26(15), 4327‒4346. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0147-5>

Poitras, J. (2019). “Is climate change causing the recent floods along the St. John River?” CBC News. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/future-floods-new-brunswick-climate-change-1.5134035#>

Poulin, A., Brissette, F., Leconte, R., Arsenault, R. and Malo, J.S. (2011). Uncertainty of hydrological modelling in climate change impact studies in a Canadian, snow-dominated river basin. Journal of Hydrology, 409, 626–636. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.057>

Public Safety Canada (2011). An Emergency Management Framework for Canada (2nd Edition). Prepared by Emergency Management Policy Directorate, Public Safety Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mrgnc-mngmnt-frmwrk/mrgnc-mngmnt-frmwrk-eng.pdf>

Public Safety Canada (2018). Canada’s National Disaster Mitigation Strategy. Prepared by Department of Public Safety Canada, Ottawa. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/mtgtn-strtgy/index-en.aspx>

Public Safety Canada (n.d.). Canadian Disaster Database. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/cndn-dsstr-dtbs/index-en.aspx>

Razavi, S. and Gupta, H. (2016). A new framework for comprehensive, robust, and efficient global sensitivity analysis: 1. Theory. Water Resources Research, 52, 423‒439. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017558>

Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia (2018). 2018 BC Freshwater Public Opinion Insights Topline Report: Results of a public opinion survey conducted June 11-21st, 2018. Conducted by McAllister Opinion Research. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/freshwateralliance/pages/2377/attachments/original/1537895583/2018_water_polling_toplines_S25.pdf?1537895583>

Reily, D. (2004). Barrie Water Conservation Program. Tools of Change. Retrieved February 2019, from <http://www.toolsofchange.com/en/case-studies/detail/103>

Renzetti, S. and Dupont, D. (Eds.) (2017). Water Policy and Governance in Canada. Global Issues in Water Policy Series, 17. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.

Research Impact Canada (2018). Knowledge Mobilization. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://researchimpact.ca/knowledge-mobilization/>

Rouillard, J.J. and Spray, C.J. (2017). Working across scales in integrated catchment management: lessons learned for adaptive water governance from regional experiences. Regional Environmental Change, 17(7), 1869–1880. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0988-1>

Roy, D. (2013). Adaptive Policy Analysis of Saskatchewan’s 25-year Water Security Plan. Prepared by International Institute for Sustainable Development for Water Security Agency for Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division, Natural Resources Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/adaptool_saskatchewan_water.pdf>

Royal Bank of Canada (2017). Canadian Water Attitudes Study. Blue Water Project, 92 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.rbc.com/community-sustainability/_assets-custom/pdf/CWAS-2017-report.pdf>

Salerno, F. (2017). Adaptation Strategies for Water Resources: Criteria for Research. CNR IRSA Water2017, 9(10), 805. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100805>

Sandford, B., Neilson-Welch, L., Morton, C., Robinson, J., Ord, A. and Martens, L. (2011). Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance: Background Report. Prepared by Adaptation to Climate Change Team (ACT). Retrieved June 2020, from <http://act-adapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/09-11-Water-Background-Report-WEB.pdf>

Sauchyn, D.J., St-Jacques, J.M., Barrow, E., Nemeth, M.W., Macdonald, R.J., Sheer, A.M.S. and Sheer, D.P. (2016). Adaptive Water Resource Planning in the South Saskatchewan River Basin: Use of Scenarios of Hydroclimatic Variability and Extremes. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 52, 222–240. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12378>

Scott, P., Tayler, B. and Walters, D. (2017). Lessons from implementing integrated water resource management: a case study of the North Bay-Mattawa Conservation Authority, Ontario. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 33(3), 393–407. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2016.1216830>

Semenza, J.C., Ploubidis, G.B. and George, L.A. (2011). Climate change and climate variability: personal motivation for adaptation and mitigation. Environmental Health, 10, 46. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-10-46>

Sherren, K. and Verstraten, C. (2013). What Can Photo-Elicitation Tell Us About How Maritime Farmers Perceive Wetlands as Climate Changes? Wetlands, 33, 65–81. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-012-0352-2>

Shrestha, R.R., Schnorbus, M.A., Werner, A.T. and Berland, A.J. (2012). Modelling spatial and temporal variability of hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Fraser River basin, British Columbia, Canada. Hydrological Processes, 26, 1841–1861. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9283>

Sills, D., Ashton, A., Knott, S., Boodoo, S., Klaassen, J., Bélair, S., and Yang, H. (2016). A Billion Dollar Flash Flood in Toronto – Challenges for Forecasting and Nowcasting [Conference paper] 28th AMS Conference on Severe Local Storms, Portland Oregon. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311645033_A_Billion_Dollar_Flash_Flood_in_Toronto_-_Challenges_for_Forecasting_and_Nowcasting>

Simms, G. and de Loë, R.C. (2010). Challenges for Water Governance in Canada: A Discussion Paper Governance for Source Water Protection in Canada. Governance for Source Water Protection in Canada Report No. 2, 1–24. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://uwaterloo.ca/water-policy-and-governance-group/sites/ca.water-policy-and-governance-group/files/uploads/files/simms_and_deloe_2010.pdf>

Simonovic, S.P. (2017). Bringing Future Climatic Change into Water Resources Management Practice Today. Water Resources Management, 31, 2933–2950. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1704-8>

Smith, R., Bass, B., Sawyer, D., Depew, D. and Watson, S. (2019). Estimating the economic costs of algal blooms in the Canadian Lake Eerie Basin. Harmful Algae, 87, 101624. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2019.101624>

Southern Chiefs Organization Inc. (2018). 2017‒2018 Annual Report, Chiefs-in-Summit. Ebb and Flow First Nation. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://scoinc.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SCO-Annual-Report-Final.pdf>

Stakhiv, E., Sciremammano, F., Snyder, J., Barletta, D., Cleary, L. and Lussier, M. (2006). Options for Managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Water Levels and Flows. Final Report by the International Lake Ontario–St. Lawrence River Study Board for the International Joint Commission, 146 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://silo.tips/download/report-main-e-6kb>

Stanley, M., Puzyreva, M. and Roy, D. (2019). Advancing Natural Infrastructure in Canada: A forum report. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/advancing-natural-infrastructure-canada.pdf>

Statistics Canada (2017). Human Activity and the Environment 2016: Freshwater in Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-201-x/16-201-x2017000-eng.htm>

Stevenson, L. (2018). New law aims to protect wetlands, lakes, rivers. Manitoba Co-operator. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.manitobacooperator.ca/news-opinion/news/new-law-aims-to-protect-wetlands-lakes-rivers/>

Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, Revised Edition. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, New York.

Straith, D., Adamowski, J. and Reilly, K. (2014). Exploring the behavioral attributes, strategies and contextual knowledge of champions of change in the Canadian water sector. Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 39(3), 255‒269. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2014.942576>

Stratton, E. (2005). Local Involvement in Water Management and Adaptive Capacity in the Oldman River Basin, Alberta. MA Thesis, University of Guelph.

Szeto K., J. Brimelow J., Gysbers, P. and Stewart, R. (2015). The 2014 Extreme Flood on the Southeastern Canadian Prairies. Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 96(12), 20‒24. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00110.1>

Taranu, Z.E., Gregory-Eaves, I., Leavitt, P.R., Bunting, L., Buchaca, T., Catalan, J. and Vinebrooke, R.D. (2015). Acceleration of cyanobacterial dominance in north temperate-subarctic lakes during the Anthropocene. Ecology Letters, 18(4), 375–384. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12420>

Telfer, L. and Droitsch, D. (2011). The Canadian Waterscape: assessing the needs of Canada’s water leaders. Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/231388>

Teufel, B., Diro, G.T., Whan, K., Milrad, S.M., Jeong, D.I., Ganji, A. and Sushama, L. (2017). Investigation of the 2013 Alberta flood from weather and climate perspectives. Climate Dynamics, 48(9), 2881–2899. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3239-8>

Teufel, B., Sushama, L., Huziy, O., Diro, G.T., Jeong, D.I., Winger, K., Garnaud, C., de Elia, R., Zwiers, F.W., Matthews, H.D. and Nguyen, V.T.V. (2019). Investigation of the mechanisms leading to the 2017 Montreal flood. Climate Dynamics, 52, 4193‒4296. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4375-0>

Thistlethwaite, J. and Henstra, D. (2017). Municipal flood risk sharing in Canada: A policy instrument analysis. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 42, 349–363. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://doi.org/10.1080/07011784.2017.1364144>

Thistlethwaite, J., Henstra, D., Peddle, S. and Scott, D. (2017). Canadian voices on changing flood risk: Findings from a national survey. Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Ontario, 1–8. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://uwaterloo.ca/climate-centre/sites/ca.climate-centre/files/uploads/files/canadian_voices_on_changing_flood_risk_fnl.pdf>

Thompson, S. (2015). Flooding of First Nations and Environmental Justice in Manitoba: Case Studies of the Impacts of the 2011 Flood and Hydro Development in Manitoba. Manitoba Law Journal, 38(2), 220‒259. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://ecohealthcircle.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Flooding-of-First-Nations-and-Environmental-Justice-in-Manitoba.pdf>

Thomson Agri-Environmental (2011a). Vulnerabilities & Adaptations to Extreme Climatic Variability: North Saskatchewan River Watershed. An analysis of socio-economic vulnerabilities to drought and excessive moisture events in the North Saskatchewan River Watershed. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.prairiesrac.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Vunerabilities-and-Adaptations-to-Extreme-Climatic-Variability-North-Saskatchewan-River-Watershed.pdf>

Thomson Agri-Environmental (2011b). Vulnerabilities & Adaptations to Extreme Climatic Variability: Old Wives Lake Watershed. An analysis of socio-economic vulnerabilities to drought and excessive moisture events in the Old Wives Lake Watershed. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.prairiesrac.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Vunerabilities-and-Adaptations-to-Extreme-Climatic-Variability-in-the-Old-Wives-Lake-Watershed.pdf>

Thurton, D. (2017). “Fort McMurray seeing big spike in water-treatment costs.” CBC News. Retrieved February 2020, from <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-water-treatment-costs-contaminants-1.3973249>

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (2019). Flood Forecasting and Warning Centre. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://trca.ca/app/uploads/trca_flood/57262.pdf>

Tremblay, H. (2016). La gestion des conflits d’usage relatif aux ressources en eau par le droit dans un contexte de variabilité hydrologique. Centre de recherche en droit public, Faculté de droit, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, 26 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.ouranos.ca/publication-scientifique/RapportTremblay2016.pdf>

Tsatsaros, J.H., Wellman, J.L., Bohnet, I.C., Brodie, J.E. and Valentine, P. (2018). Indigenous Water Governance in Australia: Comparisons with the United States and Canada. Water, 10, 1639. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111639>

Tu, C., Milner, G., Lawrie, D., Shrestha, N. and Hazen, S. (2017). Natural Systems Vulnerability to Climate Change in Peel Region. Technical Report. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ontario Climate, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://climateconnections.ca/app/uploads/2012/03/Final-Natural-Systems-VA.pdf>

United Nations (2015). Water and Climate Change Adaptation in Transboundary Basins: Lessons Learned and Good Practices. Prepared by Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) and International Network of Basin Organizations (INBO), 106 p. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/WAT_Good_practices/ece.mp.wat.45.pdf>

Wall, E. and Marzall, K. (2006). Adaptive capacity for climate change in Canadian rural communities. Local Environment, 11, 373–397. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830600785506>

Wandel, J., Pittman, J. and Prado, S. (2010). Rural vulnerability to climate change in the South Saskatchewan River Basin, in The New Normal: The Canadian Prairies in a Changing Climate, (Eds.) D. Sauchyn, H. Diaz and S. Kulshreshtha. Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, Regina, Saskatoon, 245–258.

Wang, J. and Strong, K. (2019). British Columbia’s forest fires, 2018. Statistics Canada. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-508-x/16-508-x2019002-eng.htm>

Watt, W.E. (1995). The National Flood Damage Reduction Program: 1976‒1995. Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques, 20, 237–247. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj2004237>

Weber, B. (2018). “Almost every part of Canada’s largest national park deteriorating: federal study.” CBC News. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/wood-buffalo-national-park-deteriorating-study-1.4747721>

Weikle, B. (2017). “Climate change causes glacial river in Yukon to change direction.” CBC News. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-yukon-river-piracy-1.4070153>

Weiss, L., Thé, J., Winter, J. and Gharabaghi, B. (2018). Optimizing best management practices to control anthropogenic sources of atmospheric phosphorus deposition to inland lakes. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 68(10), 1025–1037. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2018.1463929>

Westbrook and Ecogestion (2020). Action Plan to Protect the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence 2020-2030: Implementing Innovations in Science and in Governance. The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Collaborative. Prepared by Westbrook Public Affairs and Écogestion Solutions. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://www.glfc.org/pubs/pdfs/2020%20Great%20Lakes%20and%20St.%20Lawrence%20Collaborative-ENG-Web.pdf>

Whateley, S., Steinschneider, S. and Brown, C. (2016). Selecting Stochastic Climate Realizations to Efficiently Explore a Wide Range of Climate Risk to Water Resource Systems. Journal of Water Resource Planning and Management, 142(2), 6016002. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000631>

Wheaton, E., Kulshreshtha, S., Wittrock, V. and Koshida, G. (2008). Dry Times: Hard Lessons from the Canadian Drought of 2001–2002. The Canadian Geographer, 52(2), 241‒262. Retrieved February 2021, from <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2008.00211.x>

White, D.D., Withycombe Keeler, L., Wiek, A. and Larson, K.L. (2015). Envisioning the Future of Water Governance: A Survey of Central Arizona Water Decision Makers. Environmental Practice, 17(1), 25–35. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046614000489>

Wiek, A., Keeler, L.W., Schweizer, V. and Lang, D.J. (2015). Plausibility indications in future scenarios. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 9, 133‒147. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1504/ijfip.2013.058611>

Williams, B.K. and Brown, E.D. (2014). Adaptive Management: From More Talk to Real Action. Environmental Management, 53, 465–479. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0205-7>

Willox, C.A., Harper, S.L., Edge, V.L., Landman, K., Houle, K. and Ford, J.D. (2013). The land enriches the soul: On climatic and environmental change, affect, and emotional health and well-being in Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, Canada. Emotion, Space and Society, 6, 14–24. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2011.08.005>

Wittrock, V., Halliday, R.A., Corkal, D.R., Johnston, M., Wheaton, E., Lettvenuk, J., Stewart, I., Bonsal B. and Geremia, M. (2018). Saskatchewan Flood and Natural Hazard Risk Assessment. Prepared by Saskatchewan Research Council for Saskatchewan Ministry of Government Relations. Retrieved June 2020, from <http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/313/109701-109701-SK-FloodandNaturalHazardRiskAssessment.pdf>

Wood, M.D., Thorne, S., Butte, G., Linkov, I. and Kovacs, D. (2017). Adaptive Management for Climate Change, in Mental Modeling Approach. Risk, Systems and Decisions. Springer, New York, New York. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6616-5_5>

Woodruff, S.C. (2016). Planning for an unknowable future: Uncertainty in clmate change adaptation planning. Climatic Change, 139, 445–459. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1822-y>

World Wildlife Fund (2017). A National Assessment of Canada’s Freshwater (Watershed Reports). Retrieved June 2020, from <https://wwf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/WWF-Watershed-Reports-Summit-FINAL.pdf>

Yates, J., Harris, L., and Wilson, N. (2017). Multiple ontologies of water: Politics, conflict and implications for governance. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 35(5), 797‒815. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775817700395>

Zhang, X., Flato, G., Kirchmeier-Young, M., Vincent, L., Wan, H., Wang, X., Rong, R., Fyfe, J., Li, G. and Kharin, V.V. (2019). Global observed climate change, Chapter 2 in Canada’s Changing Climate Report, (Eds.) E. Bush and D.S. Lemmen. Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 112‒193. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/Climate-change/pdf/CCCR_FULLREPORT-EN-FINAL.pdf>

Zubrycki, K., Roy, D., Osman, H., Lewtas, K., Gunn, G. and Grosshans, R. (2016). Large Area Planning in the Nelson‒Churchill River Basin (NCRB): Laying a Foundation in Northern Manitoba. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Canadian Electronic Library/desLibris, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Retrieved June 2020, from <https://www.deslibris.ca/ID/10065330>

Footnotes

A river basin refers to the area of land that drains into a river, including its contributing tributaries such as streams and creeks. Watersheds represent smaller sub units of a river basin that capture precipitation and drains it towards a water source. ↩